<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On the surface, yes, there is a clear conflict of interest. How can the board (or its interests) account for itself if its agenda is detrimental to the community’s? Its very strange that the community has to step up for its own sake. Where there’s smoke, there is fire and this arrangement provides ample opportunity for the board to sway the AC’s decisions. Imagine in a legal system if the same jury were to appeal its own decision. In effect, that could potentially be the case here. Appeals are not longer considered in a disinterested manner. Better to obviate any need for explanation over a questionable appeal and to work solely with integrity. The board needs less presence in the AC.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-Brian</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>