Again, just to emphasize the absurdity of Albano’s legal clearance to the council that it’s perfectly OK for a city board or commission member to be in an actual voting position on an agenda item that their own employer has already issued a position statement about — and could possibly be impacted by economically — we’re going to repeat our point from yesterday.
It’s not OK.
In fact, at the very least, it constitutes what is called a “common law” conflict of interest. There could also very easily be a personal economic effect from their official decision as well. After all, they’re working for the guy!
And still want to be, most likely.
The fact that the board or commission member doesn’t have a “real property” interest in the matter makes no difference. Albano’s theory about this being the basis for a legal conflict of interest is clearly stupid and uninformed.
Think of it this way. If what Albano is saying is true, then so long as they didn’t own part of the company’s real property, any Burbank board or commission member would be allowed to weigh in on their own employer’s specific business with the city which ended up being placed in front of them. And in an approve/disapprove capacity.
How is that sane?
From tonight’s agenda, the issue at hand is renaming First Street to the melodiously charming “IKEA Way.”