Dear Nederland Community,

During the, September 4, BOT meeting I shared the following non agenda public comment. Since there were less than 10 non-BOT members on the call I felt it would be valuable to share them with the community at-large. With all of the upcoming proposed changes that are coming before the Planning Commission and the BOT, remember it could not be easier to join a meeting via Web-ex. That is how your voice and opinion get heard. The next BOT meeting will be on Tuesday, October 3.

I have a curiosity and concern about what the reference definition this BOT is using for the term conflict of interest, and more specifically what constitutes not having a conflict of interest. Over the past 6 months I have heard several BOT members state either in a BOT, committee, or other public meeting that they did not have a conflict of interest in the matter being discussed. The last BOT meeting (August 15) was a glaring example of one of those instances. Each time I was surprised to hear that someone stated that they did not have a conflict of interest. My surprise was because that member has a financial/and or business connection to that topic.

I am curious if BOT members are confusing the concept of neutrality with the concept of conflict of interest. That they are aspiring to remain neutral in the face of a conflict of interest. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures website in Colorado a conflict of interest pertains to: “A member who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill proposed or pending before the general assembly, shall disclose the fact to the house of which he is a member, and shall not vote thereon. Colo. Const. art. V, § 43.” https://www.ncsl.org/ethics/conflict-of-interest definitions

To me that would mean owning a business that will be affected by a BOT decision = conflict. Having a business arrangement or alliance with someone who is bringing a matter for a decision to the BOT= conflict

Oxford Language definition of Neutrality: 1. the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality. 2. absence of decided views, expression, or strong feeling.

The work of the BOT is a WE-community not an, I, individual responsibility and commitment.

Given the importance of the work of the BOT, I think there should be a working formal definition of conflict of interest and that more BOT members should be recusing themselves from voting on matters in which they have a conflict of interest.

After my comment Mayor Billy Giblin shared that prior to the September 4 meeting the BOT had been in discussion about the topic of Conflict of Interest.

Teresa Robertson

Nederland