08-01-2018, 12:48 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?
Not an expert here, but I don’t think he has a conflict re: Phase 2. It’s so remote from any interest of his of which I am aware that I can’t see it as an issue, and I certainly would not encourage people to speak against him on that basis. Everybody should be treated fairly, even if they are the kind of person I wouldn’t expect to recuse themselves when they actually should.
In Phase 1 I recall some councillors initially recused themselves on very remote grounds — they had family who owned houses “near” the route, where I believe “near” meant within several blocks. Eventually, goes my recollection, they returned to the debate after receiving advice that their interest was sufficiently remote that it didn’t matter. It’s not like voting on the LRT and transit terminal while owning the Sixo site or something like that.