It's definitely up for debate, Dannie. For instance, if you were to re-frame it as a business analogy. Do you believe that a board would approve a CEO of a corporation the size of our municipality who is actively working on a $1.5 Billion dollar project (port), a $20 million dollar project involving a commercial land dispute (berth), a rebuild of a major facility costing about $50 Million (Marconi), negotiating a complex legal document that may have applicability for 30 years (charter)... to let them split their time or depart for months to work on something else that would dominate their focus? Or would that board ask the CEO to step down because their presence and full focus is not expendable? This isn't exactly a mayor who has shared information and fully equipped his council to be able to manage effectively in his absence. What may be permitted by loophole or lack of coverage doesn't mean that it's ethical or responsible. Meanwhile. when we look at the MGA or the charter, a constant theme is the limitations of its scope, or deficiencies. Is what is clearly a conflict slipping through the cracks, because of lack of foresight into this situation occurring and its full implications? If we begin examining the employee policies for the CBRM, if that is applied to Mayor Clarke he will be extremely challenged in staying within the guidelines, unless the CAO Walsh continues to be very forgiving, something that may be a bad decision when the next mayor is in place by Q1 2021 - if the next majority council is one that heavily values transparency and accountability. He may argue he's not an employee. If that is the case, where is his claimed vacation coming from? He's going to be in a position of arguing that he can remain on a technicality, not on any semblance of responsible decision making.