[brief] Cb13; Cb21.  Complainants argue that the Commission's Final Decision was not supported by substantial credible evidence.  They take issue with the Commission's finding that there was "an insufficient nexus" between Respondent's Facebooks posts and her membership on the Board, focusing on what they argue is the "erroneous conclusion" that Respondent's Facebook posts makes no reference to her membership on the Board.  Cb14-Cb15 citing Ca16-Ca17.  This proposition must be rejected because there are no objectionable posts that identify Respondent as a Board member.  The posts speak for themselves.  The only posts that refer to Respondent as a member of the Board is her January 7, 2022 post which show her being sworn in as a member of the Board along with comments that follow (Ca223-Ca224) and perhaps her January 4, 2022 post.  Ca220.  There is nothing insidious or controversial about these posts.  The other posts objected to by Complainants clearly contain nothing that references Respondent as a member of the Board.  Ca214-Ca218, Ca226-Ca232.  Complainants stress that Respondent held herself as a member of the Board in all her Facebook posts based on the fact that she campaigned for the Board and she posted pictures of her swearing in as Board member.  Cb14-Cbl6.  These contentions must be rejected.  As to the campaigning, it defies logic that Respondent held herself out as a member of the Board based on postings that predate her election to the Board.  Complainants' assertion that Respondent's postings of pictures of her swearing in somehow transformed all of her postings into ones in which she held herself out to be a member of the Board is also illogical.  The fact that Respondent's "Facebook friends" were aware that she was a Board member (see Cbl5-Cbl6 citing Ca21) does not change that.  Next, Complainants contend that, by responses to requests for admission, Respondent admits that she held herself out as a member of the Board.  Cb17, citing Ca136-Ca137, Ca144-Ca145.  Yet none of the responses cited by Complainants contain such an admission.  ibid.  Nor does either of the resolutions adopted by the Board with regard to Respondent's and fellow Board member [...]'s social media posts contain findings that Respondent held herself out as a member of the Board in any of her posts.  Ca72, Ca75-Ca76.  Complainants also emphasize what they describe as the "community's uproar" over Respondent's and [...]'s Facebook's posts (Cbl9).  But public dissatisfaction with the posts does not establish that Respondent held herself out in a member of the Board.  In facts, it is questionable whether the evidence that the evidence presented by Complainants actually establish that there was such an "uproar."  The minutes of meetings of the Board presented by Complainants include only sporadic complaints about the Facebook posts (Ca62-Ca73; Ca79- Ca99) and the accounts in news articles are written from certain perspectives and therefore cannot be relied on as evidence.  In sum, since there is no evidence that Respondent held herself out as a member of the Board in her controversial Facebook posts, the Commission's finding that there was not a substantial nexus between the posts and her membership on the Board was supported by credible evidence.