Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
provides that a business representative is not an officer, and leaves to the District Council the option of providing the local unions with business representatives or allowing them to either elect or appoint their own representatives. Given this grant of discretionary authority to the District Council, it cannot be said that individual local unions have a vested right to elect business representatives. 944 F.2d at 614-15. It will be observed that the 2000 Constitution, providing for the appointment of business representatives by the District Council, represents the exercise by the District Council of a discretionary authority which the Ninth Circuit held the earlier version of section 31B conferred upon it. See also Lathers Local 42-L v. UBC, 73 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir.1996) ; Local No. 267 v. UBC, 992 F.2d 1418, 1424
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that court has inherent power to control the judicial business before it
B. holding that the remedies are exclusive
C. holding that bylaws granting exclusive control of business representatives to a district council did not violate the ubc constitution
D. holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution
E. holding authority to control limits duty to control
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.