The meeting will come to order.
OK!OK! Here’s what we are gonna do.
Remember that transit example we all went to see? It was really cool, Right?Right?. OK!OK! We can do that on 10th. St. like we discussed on the plane. We can do it where my property is. Right?
Point of order?
Yes!
Won’t you be considered to have a conflict? And if so, what will we do when that brat Sewell starts nosing around?
OK!OK! this is the really cool part! OK!OK! City hall says all we have to do is for me to recuse myself for the actual vote! Cool! Huh? They say they do it all the time with no problem! After all, everyone knows the real business of the city is conducted in that now very notable “Back Room”!
Brilliant! So that’s our plan right?
The citizens? We will just ignore them and hope that Guardian guy doesn’t run with it! Besides, that Sewell lady is turning into a real pain!
Is that close to how the meeting went guys and girls? God! I am really getting tired of our “officials” treating us like we are 12 years old!!!

OK, we obviously have another conflict of sorts:
Cyclops must be a secret member of the group, for he has transcribed the discussion word for word (except he got one extra “OK” in it).
Right, group?

Well, even if that wasn’t the conversation, think about it this way:: If you had a project to build, and three or four people wanted it on or near their property, and one of those people was a co-worker and/or friend of yours, and the others were ones you didn’t know or maybe did know and maybe don’t like, how objective could you be?
It’s a bit like when a prosecutor tells the jury that the defendant in a rape case has a long record of assaulting women, beating children and stomping on the heads of little puppies and kittens, and the defense objects, and the judge tells the jurors: You will disregard those last remarks.
Wanna hear the discussion in the jury room later?
Sort of like:
Juror 1: Jesus! That guys a totally rotten bastard. I’d bet a bunch that he did this rape, too.
Juror 2: Yeah, I would too, but, still, just cuz he did all that other stuff doesn’t necessarily mean he did this one, does it?
Juror 3: Well, no, but it sure makes it likely. Besides, even if he didn’t do this, the bastard ought to be locked up!
Juror 4: Hey, the judge said to disregard those remarks.
Juror 5: Fine, let’s disregard them, hang the sonofabitch and get out of here.
Jurors 6-12: Amen! Right on! Let’s go home! Guilty on all counts, whatever they are. Guilty! Yeah!

In other words, recusing, disregarding, etc., don’t make a damn bit of difference.

Dave,

What we need is an organization chart for all these “agencies” created by the Boise City government, and a description of their function. Downtown Business Association, CCDC, etc. Sounds to me like all these agencies should be privately funded by the Chamber of Commerce, since they seem to act for the benefit of business and against the interest of average Boise citizens.

I am for a straight forward and honest government. But Mr Tomlinson is in an awkward position. He is a property owner of many downtown properties and resides on the DBA board. He may stand to gain from any decision, but so would any other property owner. There in lies the difficulty for all parties involved. It may be impossible to find any property owner that would not have a conflict of interest. Just think how much property the Carley’s own.

With or without the CCDC/DBA, we still owe our wonderful downtown to those that have taken the risk to make it what it has become.