Anyone see a conflict here?

Should councillors with ties to the hospitality sector have recused themselves from voting  on the Skaha Lake Park lease?

A sort of a catch-22 question for if their was only an insignificant benefit for their investment / business while a recusement wouldn’t be required it would also carry a tacit admission that the waterslide as an economic driver for the tourist industry would fail to meet expectations.

Failure to recuse could easily be inadvertent, focusing on the annual benefit rather than the total amount over the life of the lease. Even a small amount, say $300, soon amounts to a reusable  figure.

Should there be a councillor in that position then all votes pertaining to the lease would be null .

Repeating the votes might lead to a pathway out of a difficult dilemma and perhaps avoid participation in a lawsuit. This would be an opportunity for councillors harbouring second doubts to weave the events of the last three months into a more informed decision.

For those firm in their conviction it’s an opportunity to defend their position with something more than than generalities (enhancement, vibrant,  underused) perhaps releasing economic impact studies and cost/benefit analysis.

Denis Hearle

Penticton