Spiny Norman

We'll have to agree to disagree then, as I think that phrase being included just at that point in the document is completely relevant. The fact that it is included there, but not in hundreds of other places, speaks volumes about the intent of the writer in respect of the specific response that the writer is making in respect of certain ACF by-laws.

It probably is presumtuous, in the way that it is worded. If indeed their intent is as I supposed above, then perhaps a better way would be to note the Paramatta-based members of the team, then in a separate sentence to suggest that they'd worked happily with Bill in the past and that if he were appointed as ACF rep then they'd happily work with him again. But that would take a lot more words. Anyway, I am speculating as to their intent, so I really don't know one way or the other.

You're not alone in suggesting that a COI might occur. But when you suggest that it has occurred and is irreconcilable, you might indeed find that you have fewer travelling companions.

That would be one way of resolving it. Not necessarily the only way, or the best way. Depends on specific circumstances and track record of conduct. In such situations I will also look at what fellow officials are saying, privately and publicly, in forming a view. If they, seeing all this "up close", are satisfied that all is well, then that's a big factor in assessing whether a real COI is occurring.