One who intends to leave others better off for his having existed.

1/5/14

Should Nancy Hoffmann now be excused from City Council votes concerning DGI? Hat Tip; Billy Jones

Billy put up a response to today's letter to the editor;

http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2014/01/nancy-vaughan-could-and-should-do-more.html

which says "Mayor Vaughan should be asking the Greensboro City Council to pass a resolution to lobby the North Carolina House and Senate to enact laws with teeth-- laws that can and will be enforced."

which I agree with.
.
.
Billy's post also states; "On November 16, 2012, Greensboro City Attorney S Mhjeeb Shah-Khan wrote a letter (PDF) to the City Council defending Councilwoman Hoffman of my charges."

From the letter from the above link;


Now that Hoffmann signed for and her property directly benefited from monies from her city council votes, should votes concerning DGI, and nominations to DGI's board be considered a conflict of interest under the city charter, 14-234 and 160A-75?


The tenant who received DGI money is under Hoffmann's control via their lease, and is receiving an indirect and direct benefit to her property from the DGI grant, as the infrastructure improvements will convey "property" to Hoffmann.


Hoffmann has a financial interest in an entity that received money from an award granted via her city council votes.

Hoffmann now has a financial interest in DGI, and is nominating a business partner she has a financial interest in to be on the board.

I will be sending this information to Mujeeb for further clarification.

I believe Mrs. Hoffmann should not have the opportunity to appoint members to DGI's board, as she now has a financial interest in DGI's actions.

I believe Mrs. Hoffmann should not be allowed to vote on any matters funding or managing DGI.
.
.
I believe Mrs. Hoffmann should resign for self dealing;

"Any officer, department head, or employee who willfully conceals such a financial interest or willfully violates the requirements of this Section shall be guilty of malfeasance in office or position and shall forfeit his office or position.

Violation of this Section with the knowledge expressed or implied of the person or corporation contracting with or making a sale to the city shall render the contract void."

Sec. 4.131. - Conflict of interest: Greensboro Code of Ordinances, City Charter
.
.
Previously;

Today's News and Record Letter to the Editor on Nancy Hoffmann, and a Hoffmann Linkfest

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2014/01/todays-news-and-record-letter-to-editor.html

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wait until you find out all that she is doing behind the scene with the GPAC to benefit her friend Kathy Manning and walker sanders.

She is a thief and a liar, a self dealing bigot.

Based upon Sha Khan' s memo, she will have to recuse herself from all things MOMENTUM Development. I can t believe she had the balls to nominate her business partner. No class

I agree SHE MUST RESiGN , but probably will not. She will say something like " my constituents want me to be here".

Billy Jones said...

"Should Nancy Hoffmann now be excused"

How about we start a recall process and excuse her altogether?

W.E. Heasley said...

George:

“[Peter] Stillman … points out that those who see “a strong central government or a strong ruler” as a solution implicitly assume that “the ruler will be a wise and ecologically aware altruist,” even though these same theorists presume that the users of CPRs [common-pool resources] will be myopic, self-interested, and ecologically unaware hedonists.” - Governing the Commons, Elinor Ostrom, page 218


Ostrom is pointing out a fatal flaw in political science: That well informed voters will elect the best candidate that will then dispense the public good in a non-self-interested fashion. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Prior to being elected, the “candidate” is self-interested which is a common and natural human condition. Once elected the former candidate becomes altruistic? Nay, nay. Same person, same self-interest. Merely being elected does not change the condition of self-interest.

Moreover, the battery of regulations spawned by legislation that you cite in your blog post is proof positive that the once candidate, now elected official, remains self-interested and possibility becomes even more self-interested. Further, the battery of regulations spawned by legislation is a posteriori knowledge, meaning past experience lead to the legislation.

On the other hand, politicos are desperate for the voter and citizenry to believe they are the wise, non-self-interested and make decisions via altruism when dispensing the public good.