By NICOLE CARTRETTE
Staff Writer

A problem that has plagued the planning board for months was solved in a matter of minutes Thursday.

The board voted unanimously to amend a conflict of interest statement that all members agreed to sign and three members voting rights were restored.

At a planning meeting last month the planning board voted 3-2 to require members sign a conflict statement or lose the right to vote.

This left three members without voting rights because they refused to sign the statement. Lacy Wilson, James Register, and Chandler Worley had concerns about the wording of the document.

The Thursday night vote that reunified the board came after Planning Director Stevie Cox told the board that County Manager Jim Varner had asked that the conflict policy be taken off of the agenda. If the board agreed to remove it from the agenda, there would not have been enough voting members present to carry on the meeting.

“If we don’t have a quorum, we can’t do business,” Ivan Wilson said, suggesting something be done to make all members voting members and move on.

It is unclear why Varner asked for the policy to be removed or if he was aware of the exact situation it would have created.

While Varner asked that the planning board hold off on the policy, County Attorney Steve Fowler had prepared a substitute conflict statement that elaborated on the first statement. Fowler prepared a four-page document in place of the two-paragraph statement the board had originally considered.

While Worley and Lacy Wilson were willing to sign Fowler’s statement, Ivan Wilson wasn’t pleased with the lengthy document that he said was filled with “legalese and mumbo jumbo.”

“It’s difficult to interpret. It has made a very complex issue about a very simple thing,” Ivan Wilson said. He read portions of the attorney-drafted policy that defined “actual or potential conflicts of interest” in seven paragraphs, and included a definition and procedure section. “That’s mind boggling, if we can’t get something simpler than this,” Ivan Wilson declared. “To understand it is ridiculous.”

Fowler was not present at the meeting to explain any of the document’s text. One board member asked if it should be sent back to Fowler while another said “maybe we should send it to another attorney.”

“Fellas, in business we have to be careful,” James Register said. He pointed out “perceived” and “actual” are two different things. He gave the example of having a cup of coffee with someone and it being perceived as a business deal or something related to planning.

Lacy Wilson pointed out that deleting “perceived” and “future” from any statement would satisfy him. He said that he and other board members should have been given the opportunity to input on the first statement drafted.

“Timing was unfortunate,” Ivan Wilson said of the policy, first discussed in December before some new members had even come onto the board. He encouraged the other board members to speak up with any changes they wanted.

The agreed upon statement reads:

“My signature indicates that I will not participate in any activity with the Columbus County Planning Department that will result in real or personal gain. I consider my responsibilities seriously and hold the ethical business practice of the Planning Board and Department in the highest regards.”

The statement further explains that members will forfeit the right to vote and “not engage in conversation or activity that could sway board decision in any direction” when a conflict is involved.

Refusal to sign the statement does not affect future members’ rights, responsibilities or voting privileges.