Laserfiche WebLink
LMCl) UOAKD OF UIKKCTOKS Auj'.ust 26, 1992 <br />In our case. I do not know what all the facta arc. other <br />than that several of the board iiiciiibers are niembers of the yacht <br />club. Given that fact alone. I would not be of t lie opinion, if <br />that were the only fact presented to the court, that the court <br />would lule that an improper conflict of interest exiateil. There <br />may be other facts out there. Those are facts that I do not have <br />any knowledge of. So I caruiot real lv render an opinion. It may <br />be better to discuss that matter first. <br />There is no guidance or judgment in any of the municipal law <br />treatises that I have found and consulted as to what a body can <br />do when a conflict of interest situation arises. In other words, <br />if u body concludes that a conflict of interest exists, there is <br />no guidance as to what tliat body can do about it. There is no <br />stated authority anywhere for a body to state that those people <br />may not be fieard in discussion or that their votes may not be <br />counted. <br />A hoard can get into some very questionable arca.s about what <br />the authority of the board is. There are very difficult ques­ <br />tions about the authority of the board to disenfranchise one <br />community or take away their right to vi>te <»n an application be­ <br />cause the public boily thinks there in.-iy be a conflict ol itilerest <br />situation. It would be nice if we didn’t have to get to those <br />issues. I do not know if this is a case where <br />address them. That would be a difficult mine <br />feel our way throuah. <br />Cochran said he does not feel the Conflict <br />ject can he discussed without getting into the specifics of a <br />case. He suggested proceeding with the agendri .and then tiiscuss <br />Conflict of Interest when it arises. Hurr responded that the <br />Board voted to discuss the issue. Bloom said his under3tanding <br />of the motion is for discussion for all matters brouaht before <br />the Board, not just one. Hurr said the motion was to hear ol»jec- <br />tions to the policy itself. Carlson said he believes the policy <br />is firmly in place. For the record he stated he does not <br />the Board wants to tell members how to vt)le. He does not <br />anyone's miritl is going to be changed by the discussion. <br />•aid he would rather discuss this topic before going on <br />agenda. ... . .Hurr stated she sat on the committee at which the policy was <br />determined bv consensus. The committee was dealint with the <br />public perception of the appointed members of the Board. she <br />does not believe I.eFevere spoke direct I v ti» the policy the LMCD <br />has. .she so id Hi** sintewent deals with court cases. <br />I.rivvere responded that in Conlli^l ol Itilvresi eitwatioris, <br />an economic *»r i.ecuniary benefit, if diieci or indnect. is <br />Impermisab I•. He said he was focusing on whether It was pecuni- <br />we will have <br />field for us <br />to <br />t O' <br />of Interest sub- <br />be I ieve <br />be Iieve <br />n.'ibcock <br />to the <br />ary Hurr asked for .sn c*i»lan it ion of pecuniary, <br />is dee Mill with direct of indirect pereonal financial fa in. <br />,Mgai