Hat Tip; Roch Smith Jr.
So last night Nancy Hoffmann held office hours as a City Council Member, at a business where she is the landlord, after physically signing off on a taxpayer funded DGI grant which one of her City Council votes funded.
Greensboro's city attorney said Tuesday night there is nothing wrong with Nancy Hoffmann's actions, which contradict the City's charter, which Mujeeb say must be considered;
"Mayor and Council:
...What must be considered is if a conflict of interest exists either under N.C.G.S. §§160A-75 or 14-234, or the City of Greensboro’s Charter, or the City’s Conflict of Interest Policy. ...Direct or indirect benefits are considered under the City’s conflict of interest policy and typically involve financial interests for the Councilmember, his or her immediate family, their partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ the member, family member or partner...
S. Mujeeb Shah-Khan
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
This is the same city attorney who said Robbie was excused for living in a building and having money passed through to Roy Carroll, who also said Yvonne could vote for the Civil Rights Museum bail out after she resigned from a Museum entity to be able to vote;
As the "Ethical Responsibilities of the Governing Body of the City of Greensboro", passed on February 19, 1993 states; "The Mayor or any member of the City Council who has a financial interest, direct or indirect, in any official act or action before the Council shall, …disclose such interest and all material facts with respect there to the City Manager and City Attorney. In addition, he/she shall publicly disclose on the record of the Council the nature and extent of such interest, including the full disclosure of all such material facts, and shall withdraw from any consideration of the matter pursuant to sec. 4.131 of the City Charter."
And as Sec. 4.131. - "Conflict of interest: Greensboro Code of Ordinances" states; "Any officer, department head or employee who has financial interest, direct or indirect, in any proposed contract with the city … shall make known that interest and shall refrain from voting upon or otherwise participating in the making of such contract…”,
Last year Mrs. Hoffmann voted to fund DGI while in negotiations for DGI's lease at the same property, and the city attorney said it was ok for her to vote, even though the city charter says she shouldn't have.
Greensboro’s Ethics Code says that if there is an actual or possible financial interest, Nancy Hoffmann was supposed to publicly disclose on the record of council, and the remaining Council members are supposed to decide if a conflict of interest exists, how can be up to the city attorney to decide who has an interest or conflict?
According to Mujeeb, Nancy Hoffmann has a financial interest if she directly or indirectly had any actual or potential ownership, investment, or compensation arrangement (the lease) with DGI which conducts transactions with The City of Greensboro.
But Mujeeb says she didn't and doesn't, even though some of Mujeeb's prior decisions contradict each other, as well as the city charter, which Mujeeb says is included in what must be considered.
There is another matter which a source informed me of that compounds the issue, as the following information request from yesterday reveals;
"Please provide details of Nancy Hoffmann's historic application provided by DGI.
Was the application was created, submitted etc... by DGI without Hoffmann's reimbursement?
What was the monetary value of the service, if Hoffmann didn't reimburse DGI?
Please provide what the grant Hoffmann's tenant received funded specifically, meaning what was the match and the other money to match it provided for."
My impression is Greensboro's city attorney determines who has a conflict or not, depending on which way the political wind is blowing.
Greensboro is not going to come out of its self imposed depression if the conflict issues are not fixed.