In spirit I supported the Petitioners on behalf of taxpayers, however I was disappointed that the Petitioners themselves neglected to pursue the front and centre issue that a video appeared to show were procedural irregularities.
Rather the Petitioners seemed, from the judgement, to have prioritized inferring direct or indirect pecuniary interest and requesting disqualification. This kind of inference was noteably lacking in evidence or proof despite the structural aspects of the societies allowing for potential remuneration of directors who might one day be ex elected officials. The Judge needed evidence not inference.
Consequently, the judge could only go so far as to conclude in part that..."in these circumstances, the petitioners concerns are understandable. In the sphere of local government politics, it would be in everyone's best interests to ensure that future local government meetings follow properly transparent procedures". Earlier he found that our CRD director had been imprudent yet did not go so far as to say improper in a similar case. His final judgement was not particularly surprising.
Suffice to say that that acknowledgement and the Islands Trust's own "How to Stay out of Trouble" guidelines to conflict of interest issues are about the best we can expect coming out of the community addressing this important issue.