As you may remember, last week I was all hot and bothered about a meeting I attended at my local Community Board. One of the issues I pondered about was the conflict of interest of bar owners serving on the board who are allowed to vote on policy that, by their own admission will impact the value of their business (fact point: only one of the three on the committee who were present phrased it in such clear terms).
At tonight's full board meeting where the vote was scheduled to take place on the recommended new policy of the committee, it was announced that in fact the conflict of interest city attorney (or some such fancy title) ruled that they should not be allowed to vote on this one issue, but they were allowed to participate in all discussion.
In the end, it turned out that the "transfer" policy in contention, as advocated by the bar owners, was rolled back, by vote of the full board. The bar owners wouldn't have had the votes anyways so appealing the decision on their votes won't matter. One thing I did notice was if they hadn't spent so much energy arguing about "being gagged" they might have spent more time making a stronger case for their ideas.
And so we travel onward...