"Members of advisory boards and commissions shall not discuss, advocate, or vote on any matter in which they have a conflict of interest or an interest which reasonably might appear to be in conflict with the concept of fairness in dealing with public business. A conflict of interest or a potential conflict occurs if a member has a separate, private, or monetary interest, either direct or indirect, in any issue or transaction under consideration. Any member who violates this provision may be subject to removal from the board or commission." (Emphasis mine.)

As you know, last night Ms. Dancy was formally recused from the CDC's discussion of Aura. Ms. Dancy nevertheless, without personal solicitation from the panel, fielded multiple questions from the panel as a paid advocate for Trinsic. I objected contemporaneously (via the Q&A function) and was dismissed by Town staff, who suggested erroneously that Ms. Dancy was recused from participating as a member of the commission but could participate as a member of the development team. In the language quoted above, "advocate" unquestionably includes representing the applicant. (To draw this out slightly, I note that the guidelines do not say "discuss, advocate, and vote." And "advocate" can't be narrowly construed to mean "advocate as a panelist" because that would be redundant with "discuss." There's a potential argument that "advocate" does not include responding factually to factual questions, but it's foreclosed by Ms. Dancy's comments on behalf of Trinsic, which strayed beyond factual clarifications. For example, you may recall her arguing at some length that a greenway along Aura's northern boundary is unnecessary.)