CA policy on conflicts needs adjustment

Columbia Association (CA) policy does not go far enough to protect assessment-payers' rights to representation. CA representative powers include the expression of opinion, debate and voting rights on matters brought before the council/board.

Section 7 serves mostly as a placebo since it does not resolve the loss of powers of debate or vote.

To suggest that an opinion provided by a village chair would satisfy the issue is ludicrous especially with the board being quick to vote and unwilling to delay (The change in the conflict of interest policy recently voted on demonstrates this behavior).

Representatives already have proxy powers, but policy needs to clearly establish that a member in conflict of interest has the right to transfer their vote to another council/board member of their choosing.

Policy should also postpone voting until the chosen representative can receive and review the reply (on the matter under consideration) from the affected village chair.

The chosen representative can then cast their vote when needed based on that reply.

The agreement establishes that Council Representatives carry the voting rights of their village.

Denying that representative the right to vote also denies assessment payers their vote therefore breaking that agreement. Council/board members need to remember this agreement and not confuse, interfere with, or forget it.

At least one representative has already denied their village proper representation by not voting while having a personal conflict of interest. Why punish an entire village? Preserve their rights.

Steven R. Pine

Kings Contrivance