What the heck is "Conflict of interest in appearance" in this case?

Your claim is that because of residence these two Board members
should not participate in closed-door sessions involving parties
they have no association with the plaintiff other than residence.
Neither is on the city council (Meyers was but only prior to the filing
of the lawsuit). Neither is privy to their closed door sessions. Neither
has spoken in public on the lawsuit, other than at the NCRA Board meeting.
There is no evidence of them violating priviledges from being on the
NCRA Board. Hence, what you're saying is NO MARIN RESIDENT CAN PARTICIPATE
ON THE NCRA CLOSED-DOOR HEARINGS.

Suppose Sonoma County later signs an Amicus. Ooops there goes the Sonoma
County members. Oh oh. What happens if the state sues the NCRA? There goes
the Board, because all of the Board members live in California.


Your logic escapes me. You can try to sell it if you want, but that is not what is meant by
appearance. And there is no way the AG's office is going to define it
as such.

This is about politics. NCRA supporters are mad. They are blaming the City
of Novato for requiring the NCRA to follow the law. They should be blaming
Chris Neary. He's the one who has misguided the Board.