I believe Yvonne Johnson should have been recused from deliberations and voting on the Civil Rights Museum issue

If Robbie Perkins was excused for living in a building and having money passed through to Roy Carroll, Yvonne should have been excused for belonging to a PAC with Skip Alston which paid Skip's kin and possibly Yvonne's, and for being listed as a manager of one of the Civil Rights Museum's legal entities.





"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...

Mujeeb

S. Mujeeb Shah-Khan
CITY ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
.
.
What's important here is when Mujeeb states; "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."

Before this letter, Mujeeb only quoted §160A-75 as "What must be considered".

Ethical Responsibilities of the Governing Body of the City of Greensboro
.
.
As Yvonne Johnson was listed as a manager of the ICRCM, and is a Simkins PAC member along with Skip Alston, and the PAC endorses City Council candidates, she should have been recused from deliberations and votes on this issue.

Mayor Robbie Perkins, whose 2011 campaign paid $3,000 for the Simkins PAC endorsement, was the honorary chairman of a recent ICRCM/Simkins golf tournament. Mr. Perkins is now advocating Greensboro taxpayer money be spent to save the museum, which would let some Simkins PAC members retain fiduciary control over the museum’s finances.
.
.
"No member shall be excused from voting except upon matters involving the consideration of the member's own financial interest or official conduct or on matters on which the member is prohibited from voting...

In all other cases, a failure to vote by a member who is physically present in the council chamber, or who has withdrawn without being excused by a majority vote of the remaining members present, shall be recorded as an affirmative vote..."

§ 160A‑75. Voting.
.
.
"Any officer, department head or employee who has financial interest, direct or indirect, in any proposed contract with the city or in a proposed sale of any land, material, supplies, or services to the city or to a contractor supplying the city, shall make known that interest and shall refrain from voting upon or otherwise participating in the making of such contract or sale.

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
.
.

.
.
Compromised Fiduciaries: Conflicts of Interest in Government and Business

"The antithesis of conflicts of interest is the fiduciary principle: government and business actors are agents who are supposed to be acting for their principals, not for their own interests (or the interests of others besides their principals). Agents and principals not infrequently have conflicting interests; the agents have both the ability and the incentive to serve interests other than those of their principals, and they sometimes do so at their principals’ expense.1

Government officials ...have an obligation to deal openly and honestly with other people and to use prudence in dealing with other people’s property.

...When government is involved in bailing out or managing a business, the potential for conflicts is pervasive, and some of the conflicts may be intractable.

Government ethics law and corporate law on fiduciary duty both have as their objective to reinforce the fiduciary principle. Persons trusted with positions of responsibility are fiduciaries, charged with serving the interests of persons to whom they owe fiduciary duties, preferring those interests to any other interests.

Officials in all branches of government owe fiduciary obligations to the public...

Any time a government or corporate official acts (or does not act), he could be seeking to advance interests other than those he is supposed to be advancing. These illegitimate interests include self-interest narrowly construed; they also include interests of others with whom the official may feel personal or professional kinship, such as a former colleague, or someone similarly situated to the official or whose favor the official would like to curry. Some of these interests could be characterized as self-interest broadly construed...

The best counterweight to conflicts of interest is a strong commitment to personal and professional responsibility that empowers a business or government decisionmaker to overcome the motivation to advance interests other than those he is supposed to be advancing. Decisionmakers in business and in government should be firmly committed to principles of ethics, not just to obeying narrowly defined rules.

1. See Kathleen Clark, Do We Have Enough Ethics in Government Yet?
An Answer from Fiduciary Theory, 1996 U. ILL. L. REV. 57, 74 (“Numerous
courts have recognized the fiduciary obligation of government employees, even
in the absence of specific legislative or regulatory endorsements of such duties,
and these courts have imposed fiduciary-like remedies in response to violations
of the conflict and influence components of that obligation.”); see also Exec.
Order No. 12,674 § 101(a), 3 C.F.R. 215 (1990) (“Public service is a public
trust.”), as modified by Exec. Order No. 12,731, 3 C.F.R. 306 (1991) (codified at
5 U.S.C. §§ 7301, 7351, 7353 (2006)).

http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/HillPainter_PDF.pdf

A BB&T, wealthy investor and Carolina Bank bailout for Skip Alston's Civil Rights Museum and the Simpkins PAC

"The International Civil Rights Center & Museum still wants $1.5 million from the city, but it has a new plan for using it.

Museum leaders say city money — $750,000 this year and lesser amounts in the following two years — will help stabilize the struggling 3-year-old facility."

Does more money up front mean the museum is running low on cash and is in dire financial straits, partly caused by Skip Alston's participation?

"City Council members got the details of the museum’s revised request at a series of meetings Thursday."

Back room deals?

John Newsome of the News & Record attended the meeting, along with Skip Alston, Earl Jones etc...

"Council members might vote on the money at their next meeting, which is Aug. 5.

With the city’s help, the museum “will be able to generate enough funding to carry us through this year and the next two,” said Melvin “Skip” Alston, the chairman of the museum’s board of directors and a former Guilford County commissioner. “We just need a little bit of breathing room this year.”

Did Skip pull the Simpkins PAC endorsement extortion in the "series of meetings?

"The museum ...got about 57,000 paying visitors last year, far fewer than the 200,000 its leaders projected. Annual revenues have sagged by more than half..."

Were Skip Alston's attendance projections relatively bogus?

The museum didn't live up to it's goals.

The museum is failing under its current leadership.

"The museum is running a monthly deficit of about $150,000 despite cutting staff to five full-time positions. Alston said loan interest payments and facility depreciation accounts for all but roughly $30,000 per month of that."

BB&T syndicated the museum tax credits for investors.

The tax credits were most likely purchased by wealthy investors and packaged tax credit funds.

"In May, the museum asked the city for $500,000 a year over the next three years to help students come to Greensboro and see the new program. Council members wanted more details about the proposed grant and the museum’s finances, and the request never came to a vote.

Museum leaders laid out their revised request Thursday. Among the details:

The museum wants $750,000 this year, $500,000 in 2014 and $250,000 in 2015.

$100,000 would go toward paying off a loan that comes due next month." [Carolina Bank]

If the investors and BB&T are bailed out by Greensboro's taxpayers, the failed leadership will remain in place.

"...Since 1995, the city has given the museum $975,000 for planning and building repairs."

John Newsome
.
.
If BB&T and wealthy investors are not bailed out and free market capitalism reigns via Greensboro's City Council not continuing to hand out taxpayer money to those who control votes in East Greensboro via Simkins PAC endorsements controlled by Skip and friends, the museum goes under, declares bankruptcy, eliminates the debt and comes out clean without Skip and Simkins involvement/control, which means the museum could most likely survive as viable enterprise.

The Museum has not submitted audited financial statements.

I propose letting the museum go under, let BB&T and the investors take the hit, remove Skip from the equation, and leave behind an ethically clean Civil Rights Museum in Greensboro, preferably connected to the City of Greensboro Historical Museum, which should also in part include the Carolina Theater, as the blacks only section still exists above the balcony.

Nancy Vaughan suggested a similar package deal including the Greensboro Science Center.

George Hartzman
https://www.facebook.com/Hartzman
.
.
The International Civil Rights Museum's 2011 IRS tax form 990 and what looks like a bailout for BB&T and wealthy investors, with what looks like some pretty important unanswered questions

Abner Doon: February 4, 2012 - 11:43 am EST

"So, by your logic homosexuality is genetic and not behavioral?"

Actually, the genetic thing is factual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behav...

The problem may lay in the "belief" that humans are also animals?

"So, if I commit a crime or some other behavioral misdeed

I should just explain to the courts that it really was not my decision

to act in this manner I was overcome by genetic predisposition?"

Are you saying being gay is a crime?

Or should be a crime?

Or a crime against your religion?

"That is complete and utter garbage."

Nice straw man
by using a non relevent example of someone who breaks the law
and then calls the idea in question garbage
based on a flawed metaphor?

"Homosexuals are not in any way, shape, or form a minority,

they are people who have chosen to behave

in a manner that contrary to the normal behavior of the vast majority of society."

They "behave" differently from us,
so let's make them pay for being that way
thereby identifying them as a minority
which you also say they are not?

"If you are going to commit the act at least stand up,

take responsibility and accept the consequences that come with it

instead of blaming it on your chromosomes."

So you believe gays should go to jail?

Or is that still the straw man argument?

Have you ever had premarital sax?

Are two women in love
in their home
while not treading on you
somehow breaking the law?

Would you let one of your kids

date a member of a different race?

Roch Smith: "To my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters" on North Carolina's 2012 Hate Amendment

At what age did you choose to not be gay?

John Stewart

"...our neighbors may carve into stone prejudices against you...

Is religion more of a choice than homosexuality?