"Those with a conflict of interest are expected to recuse themselves from (i.e., abstain from) decisions where such a conflict exists. The imperative for recusal varies depending upon the circumstance and profession, either as common sense ethics, codified ethics, or by statute. For example, if the governing board of a government agency is considering hiring a consulting firm for some task, and one firm being considered has, as a partner, a close relative of one of the board's members, then that board member should not vote on which firm is to be selected. In fact, to minimize any conflict, the board member should not participate in any way in the decision, including discussions."
IE: Mr. Starks should not vote on any decisions affecting the location of the Events Center, which, by his own statement, will affect the location of the casino, which he is an active private board member of one applicant, and intends to benefit financially. Actually, he should be removed by the City Commission/County Commission from the CFAB board, but hey, neither the of the other board members quit their public positions -- they quit their Boot Hill Gaming Inc. Board positions -- at least they read the cards right about That conflict ... 1) wonder if they'll be back on BHG Inc Board; 2) Boot Hill Museum Inc. owns Boot Hill Gaming Inc. (FC Chair on board of Boot Hill) 3) Mayor still has large clients on board of Boot Hill Gaming Inc.
Gee, what a confused mess this is -- let's just hope that the interest of the public is actually being considered by all involved. Not clear to me what the law is on this type of mess, but with millions of dollars involved -- both tax dollars and future private gain -- it is not a small mess. (Would the State of Kansas be smart in not selecting Boot Hill Gaming Inc. due to the potential court issues that other applicants could bring?) I will say that Mr. Thorpe has remained clearer in his goals -- private involvement with public influence but not voting nor on public committees. He wouldn't fall under this question, I would think.
Our Western Heritage
Front Street, Dodge City, circa 1879
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think I'm starting to like you guys!
"Gee, what a confused mess this is -- let's just hope that the interest of the public is actually being considered by all involved."
"Interest of the public" my ass. The only interest they have is to line thier pockets with tax payers dollars!
Please bote that *we* didn't say that.... ;-)
The way I see it, in reality, the CFAB has no "real" power to make any decisions. They (CFAB) make recommendations to the commissioners and the commissioners have the power to accept or decline the recommendations of the CFAB.
The CFAB is appointed by the commissions. They will appoint those who agree with them. Sure a token voice may be appointed but the commissions will never allow a majority to disagree with thier agenda.
Post a Comment