08-01-2018, 04:49 PM
(08-01-2018, 11:58 AM)panamaniac Wrote:(07-31-2018, 07:52 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Lol, you're right about that.
I guess we're giving voters the benefit of the doubt in understanding that a conflict of interest may prevent him from doing things.
Is it a given that having an interest near Phase I would necessarily translate into a conflict of interest issue wrt Phase II? I know they must try to avoid even the appearance of conflict, but that seems a stretch to me. In the case of Aissa, if he opposes Phase II, how does that translate into a conflict?
If Phase II was a completely separate line there wouldn't be even the appearance of a conflict. However since he owns property on the existing line, his voting on the extension of that line would be, even if it's just the appearance of a conflict. This would be because decisions made wrt Phase II would affect various aspects of Phase I.