Response to emails

In a recent email between subcommittee members it was said that since the Basin Roundtables were not convened to have any powers to change anything, there is no need for a conflict of interest section. I would submit that though the Basin Roundtables do not have any direct authority to change things they have significant roles in the following:
--"shall propose projects or methods for meeting" the water needs of the basin--I believe that particular duty could be significant in terms of which projects/methods move forward

--"As needed, establish Roundtable subcommittees or other mechanisms to facilitate dialogue and resolution of issues and conflicts within the basin In order to resolve issues and conflicts it is essential for us to know who is representing which interests.

--And our Roundtable not only picks our IBCC representatives, who are charged with negotiating interbasin compacts, but removing them if they do not properly represent the interests of this basin.

--Additionally, if we don't think the Roundtable is going to have any meaningful weight in decisions why are we all spending all this time in Roundtable and subcommittee meetings?

In regard to the issue raised that each of us is here to represent an interest: that is my point, members of the Roundtable or their immediate family may have interests that are not those they are identified with. I will give another example of a possible conflict of interest in the next posting. And frankly, I cannot fathom why putting a conflict of interest section in our Bylaws is being construed as something negative.
SeEtta Moss