apparently she was late for the meeting too.

How are the two situations comparable?

Holden works for the aquarium, which hopes to expand its operations, a step made easier by the parks board's decision not to require a citywide plebiscite first. Deal works for an advocacy organization. Sure, her employers wouldn't be unhappy if she helps implement a policy change they've been asking for, but the most that the DSF would get out of it is some good PR, something they can put in their next annual report and say "See, look what we helped to do."

If there's any pecuniary benefit to DSF (i.e., through increased donations by people who're impressed by their lobbying of the GVRD), it's a hell of a lot less direct than the pecuniary benefit to the aquarium.

I agree with obscurantist, it's a real stretch to describe this as a conflict of interest. There needs to be some monetary benefit involved that has the ability to alter the stance a public official would take on an issue for their to be a genuine conflict of interest.

But I have found that in the past ten or so years that the term conflict of interest has been downgraded to a catch-all phrase meaning any kind of linkage that one doesn't care for.

The NPA, hit with an internal split, seeks to divert attention by manufacturing a story about something completely unrelated.

Looks like Mayor Sam Harper's, er, Sullivan's media Shock Troops are once again demonstrating their finely honed spin prowess.

Too bad the only one biting is Holman. But then again, who else can you depend upon to bite even when there isn't a worm on the hook?

yeah Sean, I'm trying to see the story here but I can't... I think grouse is right on this one.

Agree there Holman is biting.

"De Genova.. you've made it this far.."

"Stay with what you have or choose from the other civic parties.."

"Deal or no Deal....?"