I think this is about appearances and tainting, isn't it?

The MCBC wants to project a certain image that it is working
in the public interest, which it largely is. And part of that
image is "independence." It sure appears as its independence
has been "tainted."

Sure the $20,000 is peanuts compared to what PB has received.
But if PB considered getting involved in advocacy, it's corporate policies
would (a) prevent it from happening or (b) sever the relationship
with the contracting entity. The amount is irrelevant.

What policies does MCBC have? How come it didn't realize the
criticism it would get by working on a campaign and being partially
paid to do so?

And as a contractor to the Measure Q campaign, MCBC has the duty to always
disclose in its mailings/postings etc., that it is receiving
some funding, much the same way business reporters disclose
if they have any investments in business firms they're writing about.
When it speaks in public, before gov't bodies, the protocol is that
if you're receiving funds on a related issue, that this should always
be disclosed. Well, MCBC spokesperson Debb Hubbsmith has NEVER disclosed
this in any of the comments she's made as an MCBC spokesperson.

And doesn't it make you wonder why MCBC has not been truthful with
the public about NCRA's proposed pathway clearances? Is it because
they don't think the public ought to know? Or, is it because they're
being paid?

That's what "taint" means.