From tomorrow night’s agenda.
Sorry, it’s not this easy:
Under California law, you don’t have to have a “financial interest in any of the real property affected” in order to have an improper conflict of interest on an agenda item. Just having your job possibly dependent upon the outcome of the decision (or your influence therein) would be COI enough. In both economic and common-law terms.
Where did this woman go to law school?
And what was the decision of these members about “IKEA Way” vis a vis that of their own employer? Did they correspond?
Burbank: where you can work for your employer and do their bidding while being on an official city board or commission. That’s exactly what Albano is saying is OK. As long as you don’t own their property then there’s no conflict (!)
What a stupid name change anyway. It is perfectly Burbank though.
And speaking of state law, where has the Brown Act been on this item?
Exactly what’s going on there, and why wasn’t this decision ever made subject to an official noticing within the council minutes? They obviously already made a decision about the lease. That’s why the negotiations have begun.
Or is it a hidden subsidy to the Colony instead?