Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Bealieau, 2008 WL 4372761, *4 (D.Mass.2008) (finding Garcetti inapplicable to “public officials”); Miller v. Town of Hull, Mass., 878. F.2d 523, 530 (1st Cir.1989) (stating that the court had “no difficulty in finding that the act of voting on public issues by a member of a public agency or board comes within, the freedom of speech guarantee of the first amendment” in a retaliatory discharge claim by a board member, although additionally noting that a State statute permitted removal only for “inefficiency,, neglect of duty or misconduct in office”). Other federal courts have rejected arguments based on Bond or Miller, however, the facts of those cases distinguish them from the holdings of Bond and Miller. See Shields v. Charter Tp. of Comstock, 617 F.Supp.2d 606 (W.D.Mich.2009) ; Rash-Aldridge v. Ramirez, 96 F.3d 117, 119
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an association board could assess the members without a member vote to pay for a vertical seawall to protect the common elements from storm damage because if work was necessary board authority was sufficient
B. recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board
C. holding that a town board could prevent an elected member from speaking at a town meeting where the board member could not identify any topic of discussion he was prevented from exploring during the meeting of the board to discuss the same issues where he was given ample time to speak
D. holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings
E. holding that taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the board of assessment review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.