The suggestion that councillors who voted against CHBDC's aquisition of the Aramoana Woolshed had a' conflict of interests' seems to have been somewhat of a damp squib in so far as the office of the Auditor-General is concerned. I am informed by the A-G's Office that they do not have a role in issuing opinions in such matters in so far as they refer to particular cases. It appears that only the law-courts can determine if such an alleged conflict would amount to a breach of the law I am sure, that most local ratepayers do not want further unproductive expenditure of rates in legal posturing and gambits to try and force through the very unpopular Aramoana Woolshed aquisition. In my opinion, there are only two democratic alternatives for Council to extricate itself from this undemocratic disaster it has created for itself. They are: 1..Accept that the original determination to accept the Woolshed proposition in principle has been flawed by the suggestion of conflicts of interest (Surely those councillors who had relatives or even close business associates who were for the proposal would have a similar conflict if that premise had any weight?) and have another vote (not in camera) with councillors knowing that they would be voting under the view of the public gaze and subject to being evaluated against the will of ratepayers and the democratic function. 2..Accept that there is sufficient ratepayer objection to the Woolshed to justify a binding referendum. Individual councillors will be judged on the amount of democracy they exhibit here and that judgement will reside with them for the rest of their tenure regardless of how long or short that may be.