![]() ![]() Section 23: OPA Elections Subject: Public Vote Count Results Msg# 1224523
|
||||||
Stuart not being the signatory to the election vendor contract -- because he's a candidate this year -- is a matter of preferable "optics," rather than to address a conflict of interest (there really is none), and certainly is not a requirement legally or otherwise.
Preferable optics for a signature? Perhaps the preferable optics for a vote last Saturday would have been for Stuart Lakernick and Steve Jacobs to follow Monica's good example. |
||||||
|
||||||
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Stuart not being the signatory to the election vendor contract -- because he's a candidate this year -- is a matter of preferable "optics," rather than to address a conflict of interest (there really is none), and certainly is not a requirement legally or otherwise. If my memory is accurate, last year I had JV sign the election vendor contract rather than Rick (who was president and running for re-election). Stuart, Steve, and Monica could make there own respective decisions as they did -- one way or the other -- about whether being candidates would give them reason to recuse themselves from the contractor vote. Board members who are incumbent candidates voting on some direct election-related matter like candidate qualification, whether and how to count ballots, or other aspects of the election process itself that may impact process or outcomes, presents the kind of conflict of interest that supports recusal more clearly. Bottom line, there was nothing at all wrong with any of the decisions by Steve J, Stuart, or Monica, vis-a-vis voting on the motion Saturday or participating in discussion. |
Calendar |
![]() 5/24/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
![]() 6/28/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
![]() 7/26/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
![]() 8/9/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |