Common use of TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Clause in Contracts

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 her obligation and duty to further the care and education of the students of Clark County as stated in Nevada Statute that the Board of Trustees “shall keep the public school buildings . . . in such repair as is necessary for the comfort and health of pupils and teachers.” (NRS 393.100). (ii) Xxxxxx has not previously been the subject of any violation of the Ethics Law. (iii) Although the applicable statute does not have a de minimis exception, the Commission does not ignore that the presumed total additional cost to the district is nominal. While the amount does not affect the fact that the action occurred, it does indicate that this was an isolated event, consisting of one email, and not an ongoing or substantial harm to the public. (xx) Xxxxxx received no personal financial gain as a result of her conduct. (v) Xxxxxx relied in good faith upon her understanding of CCSD counsel’s conclusion that sending the October 17 email would not violate NRS 281A.520, and that reliance is among the mitigating factors here. NRS 281A.520 attempts to ensure public independence from government interference or influence during an election. As such public officers have an obligation to ensure that CCSD resources remain neutral during the course of an election so that any question placed upon the ballot would not be supported at public expense. The Commission is satisfied that Xxxxxx did not intend for CCSD to inappropriately incur an expense in violation of NRS 281A.520. (vi) Xxxxxx has been diligent to cooperate with and to participate very early in the Commission’s process so very few public resources have been or will be expended. (vii) The Commission acknowledges the tension Xxxxxx experienced between the Board’s role as a public entity to rely on governmental staff, time and resources to help it develop and support a ballot question, as compared to the ethical limitations on their actions as Trustees to use resources or cause governmental expenditures to support the same ballot question after the Board decides to put the matter before the voters. (See Section 4(f)). Nevertheless, NRS 281A.520 establishes the Legislative intent and explicitly prohibits public officers from causing a government to incur an expense or make an expenditure in support of or in opposition to a ballot question. (viii) The Commission recognizes that the Board of Trustees unanimously approved placing Ballot Question 2 on the ballot. i. This agreement depends on and applies only to the specific facts, circumstances and law related to this RFO now before the Commission. Any facts or circumstances that may come to light after its entry that are in addition to or differ from those contained herein may create a different resolution of this matter. j. This agreement is intended to apply to and resolve all matters relating to the transmission of the specific email referenced in this RFO. k. This agreement is intended to apply to and resolve only this specific proceeding before the Commission and is not intended to be applicable to or create any admission of liability for any other proceeding, including administrative, civil, or criminal regarding Xxxxxx.

TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Based on the foregoing, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx 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 Xxxxxxxx is a former member of the CCSD Board of Trustees. Pursuant to NRS 281A.180 and 281A.280, the Commission has jurisdiction over the conduct of former public officers for 2 years. c. In her role as a Trustee, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx instructed her CCSD secretary Xxxx Xxxxxxx to send an email on Xxxxxx’x Xxxxxxxx’x behalf to her constituent email list, providing information regarding how to support Ballot Question 2, if the reader chose to do so. x. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx relied in good faith upon her understanding of CCSD General Counsel’s opinion that the conduct was permissible. Xxxxxx did Xxxxxxxx was not intend for aware that sending this CCSD email would cause the District to incur a cost by sending the email and cost. She did not consider the use of a secretary assigned to assist her to communicate the needs of school and district facilities to District D constituents to be an expense to the districta violation of ethics laws. 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 Xxxxxxxx’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 Xxxxxxxx’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 Xxxxxxxx’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 Xxxxxxxx to fulfill her obligation and duty to further the care and education of the students of Clark County as stated in Nevada Statute that the Board of Trustees “shall keep the public school buildings . . . in such repair as is necessary for the comfort and health of pupils and teachers.” (NRS 393.100). (ii) Xxxxxx has not previously been the subject of any violation of the Ethics Law. (iii) Although the applicable statute does not have a de minimis exception, the Commission does not ignore that the presumed total additional cost to the district is nominal. While the amount does not affect the fact that the action occurred, it does indicate that this was an isolated event, consisting of one email, and not an ongoing or substantial harm to the public. (xx) Xxxxxx received no personal financial gain as a result of her conduct. (v) Xxxxxx relied in good faith upon her understanding of CCSD counsel’s conclusion that sending the October 17 email would not violate NRS 281A.520, and that reliance is among the mitigating factors here. NRS 281A.520 attempts to ensure public independence from government interference or influence during an election. As such public officers have an obligation to ensure that CCSD resources remain neutral during the course of an election so that any question placed upon the ballot would not be supported at public expense. The Commission is satisfied that Xxxxxx did not intend for CCSD to inappropriately incur an expense in violation of NRS 281A.520. (vi) Xxxxxx has been diligent to cooperate with and to participate very early in the Commission’s process so very few public resources have been or will be expended. (vii) The Commission acknowledges the tension Xxxxxx experienced between the Board’s role as a public entity to rely on governmental staff, time and resources to help it develop and support a ballot question, as compared to the ethical limitations on their actions as Trustees to use resources or cause governmental expenditures to support the same ballot question after the Board decides to put the matter before the voters. (See Section 4(f)). Nevertheless, NRS 281A.520 establishes the Legislative intent and explicitly prohibits public officers from causing a government to incur an expense or make an expenditure in support of or in opposition to a ballot question. (viii) The Commission recognizes that the Board of Trustees unanimously approved placing Ballot Question 2 on the ballot. i. This agreement depends on and applies only to the specific facts, circumstances and law related to this RFO now before the Commission. Any facts or circumstances that may come to light after its entry that are in addition to or differ from those contained herein may create a different resolution of this matter. j. This agreement is intended to apply to and resolve all matters relating to the transmission of the specific email referenced in this RFO. k. This agreement is intended to apply to and resolve only this specific proceeding before the Commission and is not intended to be applicable to or create any admission of liability for any other proceeding, including administrative, civil, or criminal regarding Xxxxxx.buildings

TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Based on the foregoing, Xxxxxx 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. x. Xxxxxx Xxxxx is a former member of the CCSD Board of Trustees. Pursuant to NRS 281A.180 and 281A.280, the Commission has jurisdiction over the conduct of former public officers for 2 years. c. In her his role as a Trustee, Xxxxxx Xxxxx instructed her CCSD his secretary Xxxx to send an email on Xxxxxx’x Xxxxx’x behalf to her his constituent email list, providing information regarding how to support Ballot Question 2, if the reader chose to do so. x. Xxxxxx Xxxxx relied in good faith upon her his understanding of CCSD General Counsel’s opinion that the conduct was permissible. Xxxxxx did Xxxxx was not intend for aware that sending this CCSD email would cause the District to incur a cost by sending the email and cost. He did not consider the use of a secretary assigned to assist her him to communicate the needs of school and district facilities to District E constituents to be an expense to the districta violation of ethics laws. 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 Xxxxx’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 Xxxxx’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 Xxxxx’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 Xxxxx to fulfill her his obligation and duty to further the care and education of the students of Clark Xxxxx County as stated in Nevada Statute that the Board of Trustees “shall keep the public school buildings . . . in such repair as is necessary for the comfort and health of pupils and teachers.” (NRS 393.100). (ii) Xxxxxx Xxxxx has not previously been the subject of any violation of the Ethics Law. (iii) Although the applicable statute does not have a de minimis exception, the Commission does not ignore that the presumed total additional cost to the district is nominal. While the amount does not affect the fact that the action occurred, it does indicate that this was an isolated event, consisting of one email, and not an ongoing or substantial harm to the public. (xxiv) Xxxxxx Xxxxx received no personal financial gain as a result of her his conduct. (v) Xxxxxx Xxxxx relied in good faith upon her his understanding of CCSD counsel’s conclusion that sending the October 17 16 email would not violate NRS 281A.520, and that reliance is among the mitigating factors here. NRS 281A.520 attempts to ensure public independence from government interference or influence during an election. As such public officers have an obligation to ensure that CCSD resources remain neutral during the course of an election so that any question placed upon the ballot would will not be supported at public expense. The Commission is satisfied that Xxxxxx Xxxxx did not intend for CCSD to inappropriately incur an expense in violation of NRS 281A.520. (vi) Xxxxxx Xxxxx has been diligent to cooperate with and to participate very early in the Commission’s process so very few public resources have been or will be expended. (vii) The Commission acknowledges the tension Xxxxxx Xxxxx experienced between the Board’s role as a public entity to rely on governmental staff, time and resources to help it develop and support a ballot question, as compared to the ethical limitations on their actions as Trustees to use resources or cause governmental expenditures to support the same ballot question after the Board decides to put the matter before the voters. (See Section 4(f)). Nevertheless, NRS 281A.520 establishes the Legislative intent and explicitly prohibits public officers from causing a government to incur an expense or make an expenditure in support of or in opposition to a ballot question. (viii) The Commission recognizes that the Board of Trustees unanimously approved placing Ballot Question 2 on the ballot. i. This agreement depends on and applies only to the specific facts, circumstances and law related to this RFO now before the Commission. Any facts or circumstances that may come to light after its entry that are in addition to or differ from those contained herein may create a different resolution of this matter. j. This agreement is intended to apply to and resolve all matters relating to the transmission of the specific email referenced in this RFO. k. This agreement is intended to apply to and resolve only this specific proceeding before the Commission and is not intended to be applicable to or create any admission of liability for any other proceeding, including administrative, civil, or criminal regarding Xxxxxx.

TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Based on the foregoing, Xxxxxx Young 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 Xxxxx is a member of the CCSD Board of Trustees. c. In her role as a Trustee, Xxxxxx Xxxxx instructed her CCSD secretary Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx to send an email on Xxxxxx’x Xxxxx’x behalf to her constituent listprincipal and academic managers email lists, providing information regarding how to support Ballot Question 2, if the reader chose to do so. x. Xxxxxx Xxxxx relied in good faith upon her understanding of CCSD General Counsel’s opinion that the conduct was permissible. Xxxxxx did Xxxxx was not intend for aware that this CCSD to email would incur a cost by sending to the email and District. She did not consider the use of a secretary assigned to assist her to communicate the needs of school and district facilities to District C principals and academic managers to be an expense to the districta violation of ethics laws. 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 Xxxxx’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 Xxxxx’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 Xxxxx’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 Young to fulfill her obligation and duty to further the care and education of the students of Clark County as stated in Nevada Statute that the Board of Trustees “shall keep the public school buildings . . . in such repair as is necessary for the comfort and health of pupils and teachers.” (NRS 393.100). (ii) Xxxxxx Young has not previously been the subject of any violation of the Ethics Law. (iii) Although the applicable statute does not have a de minimis exception, the Commission does not ignore that the presumed total additional cost to the district is nominal. While the amount does not affect the fact that the action occurred, it does indicate that this was an isolated event, consisting of one email, and not an ongoing or substantial harm to the public. (xxiv) Xxxxxx Xxxxx received no personal financial gain as a result of her conduct. (v) Xxxxxx Xxxxx relied in good faith upon her understanding of CCSD counsel’s conclusion that sending the October 17 16 email would not violate NRS 281A.520, and that reliance is among the mitigating factors here. NRS 281A.520 attempts to ensure public independence from government interference or influence during an election. As such public officers have an obligation to ensure that CCSD resources remain neutral during the course of an election so that any question placed upon the ballot would will not be supported at public expense. The Commission is satisfied that Xxxxxx Xxxxx did not intend for CCSD to inappropriately incur an expense in violation of NRS 281A.520. (vi) Xxxxxx Young has been diligent to cooperate with and to participate very early in the Commission’s process so very few public resources have been or will be expended. (vii) The Commission acknowledges the tension Xxxxxx Young experienced between the Board’s role as a public entity to rely on governmental staff, time and resources to help it develop and support a ballot question, as compared to the ethical limitations on their actions as Trustees to use resources or cause governmental expenditures to support the same ballot question after the Board decides to put the matter before the voters. (See Section 4(f)). Nevertheless, NRS 281A.520 establishes the Legislative intent and explicitly prohibits public officers from causing a government to incur an expense or make an expenditure in support of or in opposition to a ballot question. (viii) The Commission recognizes that the Board of Trustees unanimously approved placing Ballot Question 2 on the ballot. i. This agreement depends on and applies only to the specific facts, circumstances and law related to this RFO these RFOs now before the Commission. Any facts or circumstances that may come to light after its entry that are in addition to or differ from those contained herein may create a different resolution of this matter. j. This agreement is intended to apply to and resolve all matters relating to the transmission of the specific email referenced in this RFOthese RFOs. k. This agreement is intended to apply to and resolve only this specific proceeding before the Commission and is not intended to be applicable to or create any admission of liability for any other proceeding, including administrative, civil, or criminal regarding XxxxxxYoung.

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 Xxxxx to send an email on Xxxxxx’x behalf to her constituent listDistrict 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 her obligation and duty to further the care and education of the students of Clark County as stated in Nevada Statute that the Board of Trustees “shall keep the public school buildings . . . in such repair as is necessary for the comfort and health of pupils and teachers.” (NRS 393.100). (ii) Xxxxxx has not previously been the subject of any violation of the Ethics Law. (iii) Although the applicable statute does not have a de minimis exception, the Commission does not ignore that the presumed total additional cost to the district is nominal. While the amount does not affect the fact that the action occurred, it does indicate that this was an isolated event, consisting of one email, and not an ongoing or substantial harm to the public. (xx) Xxxxxx received no personal financial gain as a result of her conduct. (v) Xxxxxx relied in good faith upon her understanding of CCSD counsel’s conclusion that sending the October 17 email would not violate NRS 281A.520, and that reliance is among the mitigating factors here. NRS 281A.520 attempts to ensure public independence from government interference or influence during an election. As such public officers have an obligation to ensure that CCSD resources remain neutral during the course of an election so that any question placed upon the ballot would not be supported at public expense. The Commission is satisfied that Xxxxxx did not intend for CCSD to inappropriately incur an expense in violation of NRS 281A.520. (vi) Xxxxxx has been diligent to cooperate with and to participate very early in the Commission’s process so very few public resources have been or will be expended. (vii) The Commission acknowledges the tension Xxxxxx experienced between the Board’s role as a public entity to rely on governmental staff, time and resources to help it develop and support a ballot question, as compared to the ethical limitations on their actions as Trustees to use resources or cause governmental expenditures to support the same ballot question after the Board decides to put the matter before the voters. (See Section 4(f)). Nevertheless, NRS 281A.520 establishes the Legislative intent and explicitly prohibits public officers from causing a government to incur an expense or make an expenditure in support of or in opposition to a ballot question. (viii) The Commission recognizes that the Board of Trustees unanimously approved placing Ballot Question 2 on the ballot. i. This agreement depends on and applies only to the specific facts, circumstances and law related to this RFO now before the Commission. Any facts or circumstances that may come to light after its entry that are in addition to or differ from those contained herein may create a different resolution of this matter. j. This agreement is intended to apply to and resolve all matters relating to the transmission of the specific email referenced in this RFO. k. This agreement is intended to apply to and resolve only this specific proceeding before the Commission and is not intended to be applicable to or create any admission of liability for any other proceeding, including administrative, civil, or criminal regarding Xxxxxx.buildings

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 Xxxxxxx to send an email on Xxxxxx’x behalf to her constituent email 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 Deputy District Attorney Xxxxxxxx’x 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 her obligation and duty to further the care and education of the students of Clark County as stated in Nevada Statute that the Board of Trustees “shall keep the public school buildings . . . in such repair as is necessary for the comfort and health of pupils and teachers.” (NRS 393.100). (ii) Xxxxxx has not previously been the subject of any violation of the Ethics Law. (iii) Although the applicable statute does not have a de minimis exception, the Commission does not ignore that the presumed total additional cost to the district is nominal. While the amount does not affect the fact that the action occurred, it does indicate that this was an isolated event, consisting of one email, and not an ongoing or substantial harm to the public. (xxiv) Xxxxxx received no personal financial gain as a result of her conduct. (v) Xxxxxx relied in good faith upon her understanding of CCSD counsel’s conclusion that counsel concluded that sending the October 17 email would not violate NRS 281A.520, and that reliance is among the mitigating factors here. NRS 281A.520 attempts to ensure public independence from government interference or influence during an election. As such public officers have an obligation to ensure that CCSD resources remain neutral during the course of an election so that any question placed upon the ballot would will not be supported at public expense. The Commission is satisfied that Xxxxxx did not intend for CCSD to inappropriately incur an expense in violation of NRS 281A.520. (vi) Xxxxxx has been diligent to cooperate with and to participate very early in the Commission’s process so very few public resources have been or will be expended. (vii) The Commission acknowledges the tension Xxxxxx experienced between the Board’s role as a public entity to rely on governmental staff, time and resources to help it develop and support a ballot question, as compared to the ethical limitations on their actions as Trustees to use resources or cause governmental expenditures to support the same ballot question after the Board decides to put the matter before the voters. (See Section 4(f)). Nevertheless, NRS 281A.520 establishes the Legislative intent and explicitly prohibits public officers from causing a government to incur an expense or make an expenditure in support of or in opposition to a ballot question. (viii) The Commission recognizes that the Board of Trustees unanimously approved placing Ballot Question 2 on the ballot. i. This agreement depends on and applies only to the specific facts, circumstances and law related to this RFO now before the Commission. Any facts or circumstances that may come to light after its entry that are in addition to or differ from those contained herein may create a different resolution of this matter. j. This agreement is intended to apply to and resolve all matters relating to the transmission of the specific email referenced in this RFO. k. This agreement is intended to apply to and resolve only this specific proceeding before the Commission and is not intended to be applicable to or create any admission of liability for any other proceeding, including administrative, civil, or criminal regarding Xxxxxx.

TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Based on the foregoing, Xxxxxx Young 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 Xxxxx is a member of the CCSD Board of Trustees. c. In her role as a Trustee, Xxxxxx Xxxxx instructed her CCSD secretary Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx to send an email on Xxxxxx’x Xxxxx’x behalf to her constituent listprincipal and academic managers email lists, providing information regarding how to support Ballot Question 2, if the reader chose to do so. x. Xxxxxx Xxxxx relied in good faith upon her understanding of CCSD General Counsel’s opinion that the conduct was permissible. Xxxxxx did Xxxxx was not intend for aware that this CCSD to email would incur a cost by sending to the email and District. She did not consider the use of a secretary assigned to assist her to communicate the needs of school and district facilities to District C principals and academic managers to be an expense to the districta violation of ethics laws. 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 Xxxxx’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 Xxxxx’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 Xxxxx’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 Young to fulfill her obligation and duty to further the care and education of the students of Clark Xxxxx County as stated in Nevada Statute that the Board of Trustees “shall keep the public school buildings . . . in such repair as is necessary for the comfort and health of pupils and teachers.” (NRS 393.100). (ii) Xxxxxx Young has not previously been the subject of any violation of the Ethics Law. (iii) Although the applicable statute does not have a de minimis exception, the Commission does not ignore that the presumed total additional cost to the district is nominal. While the amount does not affect the fact that the action occurred, it does indicate that this was an isolated event, consisting of one email, and not an ongoing or substantial harm to the public. (xxiv) Xxxxxx Xxxxx received no personal financial gain as a result of her conduct. (v) Xxxxxx Xxxxx relied in good faith upon her understanding of CCSD counsel’s conclusion that sending the October 17 16 email would not violate NRS 281A.520, and that reliance is among the mitigating factors here. NRS 281A.520 attempts to ensure public independence from government interference or influence during an election. As such public officers have an obligation to ensure that CCSD resources remain neutral during the course of an election so that any question placed upon the ballot would will not be supported at public expense. The Commission is satisfied that Xxxxxx Xxxxx did not intend for CCSD to inappropriately incur an expense in violation of NRS 281A.520. (vi) Xxxxxx Young has been diligent to cooperate with and to participate very early in the Commission’s process so very few public resources have been or will be expended. (vii) The Commission acknowledges the tension Xxxxxx Young experienced between the Board’s role as a public entity to rely on governmental staff, time and resources to help it develop and support a ballot question, as compared to the ethical limitations on their actions as Trustees to use resources or cause governmental expenditures to support the same ballot question after the Board decides to put the matter before the voters. (See Section 4(f)). Nevertheless, NRS 281A.520 establishes the Legislative intent and explicitly prohibits public officers from causing a government to incur an expense or make an expenditure in support of or in opposition to a ballot question. (viii) The Commission recognizes that the Board of Trustees unanimously approved placing Ballot Question 2 on the ballot. i. This agreement depends on and applies only to the specific facts, circumstances and law related to this RFO these RFOs now before the Commission. Any facts or circumstances that may come to light after its entry that are in addition to or differ from those contained herein may create a different resolution of this matter. j. This agreement is intended to apply to and resolve all matters relating to the transmission of the specific email referenced in this RFOthese RFOs. k. This agreement is intended to apply to and resolve only this specific proceeding before the Commission and is not intended to be applicable to or create any admission of liability for any other proceeding, including administrative, civil, or criminal regarding XxxxxxYoung.