Formal Complaint Regarding Violations Involving Pecuniary Benefits, Undisclosed Gifts, and Illegal Lobbying; At Least Zack Matheny, Nancy Vaughan, Nancy Hoffmann, Chuck Watts and Roy Carroll
With some after emails between Hartzman, Nancy Vaughan and City Staff after
from: George Hartzman
to: Howell, Torie, Quiwanaki.Ramsey, "Stansberry, Destiny"
cc: "Lucas, Len", Nancy.Vaughan, "Hightower, Sharon", "Wells, Goldie", "Holston, Hugh", "Thurm, Tammi", "Abuzuaiter, Marikay", "Harrell, Andrea", Zack.Matheny
Dear City Clerk,
Formal Complaint Regarding Violations of NCGS §§ 14-234, 138A-32, and 163-278.12 Involving Pecuniary Benefits, Undisclosed Gifts, and Illegal Lobbying.
Pursuant to Section D of Greensboro’s Code of Ethics (Resolution 2021-172) and N.C. Public Records Law, I formally request an immediate investigation and criminal referral regarding the following violations by Downtown Greensboro Inc. (DGI), its President Zack Matheny, and affiliated officials;
Key Allegations:
1. Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest & Improper Influence
DGI's 1/30/2025 Bi Annual report (attached) states;
"The Bellemeade Parking Deck is another area where DGI has been instrumental in working with all business owners impacted by its imminent removal. This includes relocating existing tenants and working to identify new development opportunities."
And;
"DGI engaged with City staff, Boards, Commissions, and City Council on issues that impact the BID area stakeholders, including Depot activation and renovation, public safety, road construction, Bellemeade Parking Deck demolition, persons experiencing homelessness, parking and transportation, GPD, BHART, city ordinances and codes, and items related to our 2030 Strategic Vision Plan."
On February 18, 2025, Zack Matheny moved, voted and signed for GENERAL BUSINESS AGENDA item I.1; "2025-130 Resolution Approving Bid in the Amount of $2,354,000 and Authorizing Execution of Contract 2024-0610 with D. H. Griffin Companies, LLC. for the Demolition of the Bellemeade St Parking Deck".
Zack Matheny voted on June 3, 2025, to approve the transfer of city-owned Bellemeade property to Roy Carroll’s company, despite clear conflicts.
In the Bellemeade Street Deck deal, Roy Carroll's company essentially received a $570,000 windfall by purchasing property appraised at $2,420,000 for only $1,850,000, while simultaneously leaving taxpayers to absorb a $504,000 loss when the city paid $2,354,000 for demolition but only recovered $1,850,000 from the sale. This arrangement effectively transferred over half a million dollars in public value to a private developer while also forcing the city to eat additional costs, creating a double benefit for Carroll at the expense of Greensboro residents who saw their tax dollars used to subsidize a profitable real estate transaction.
Roy Carroll and his wife each donated $5,000 to Matheny’s 2022 campaign.
Craig Carlock, a Carroll Companies executive, sits on DGI’s Board, while Matheny serves as DGI’s President—creating a direct financial and political relationship.
https://www.downtowngreensboro.org/about-us/board-of-directors/
I was forwarded Downtown Greensboro Inc.’s FY 2023–2024 financial records released by the City on Greensboro May 21, 2025 (attached). I don't have FY 22-23 or 24-25. The City and DGI have not released the other information to date, in non-responses to information requests. It appears the ledger was released by mistake.
Greensboro Public Records Request #29695 Ledger Attached.
DGI (under Matheny’s leadership) has Carroll affiliated expenditures of $4,313.53 in taxpayer-funded grants and expenses (FY 2023-24), attached, including:
$2,500 façade grant to Park View Development LLC (Carroll-owned).
$1,762.96 for a "Carroll meeting" at Postino.
$50.57 for "Lunch Roy Carroll" at Green Valley Grill.
2. Potential Bribery or Quid Pro Quo
The sequence of Carroll's campaign donations in 2022, followed by taxpayer funded DGI spending in return and favorable city council votes reveals a clear pattern of reciprocal influence that raises serious questions about money's role in municipal decision-making.
Matheny’s failure to recuse himself from Carroll related votes appears to violate NCGS § 14-234 (Conflict of Interest) and possibly NCGS § 14-217 (Bribery of Public Officials).
3. Unregistered Lobbying & Misuse of Public Funds
DGI (led by Matheny) used taxpayer money to wine and dine city officials who later voted on Carroll’s projects:
$43.08 for City Manager at Liberty Oak (9/27/23).
$62.49 for Mayor Nancy Vaughan at Car Bar (9/29/23).
$55.53 for Councilmember Nancy Hoffmann at Print Works Bistro (3/7/24).
Matheny, Rob Overman or Downtown Greensboro aren't registered as lobbyists, yet DGI actively shapes policy benefiting Carroll and other donors, violating NC lobbying disclosure laws.
There are no entries under lobbying within DGI's available IRS form 990s (attached).
4. No-Bid Contracts & Lack of Transparency
The Bellemeade property transfer handed Carroll a $570,000 windfall through a no-bid deal that bypassed competitive processes, violating public trust and procurement laws while forcing taxpayers to absorb an additional $504,000 loss on the demolition costs.
Requested Actions:
Criminal Investigation into potential violations of:
NCGS § 138A-32(e): Prohibited gifts to public officials.
NCGS § 163-278.12: Undisclosed lobbying. Secretary of State’s Database Confirms Noncompliance. Searches for "Matheny," "Downtown Greensboro," and "Overman" (DGI VP) return zero registrations
North Carolina law (N.C.G.S. § 14-234) prohibits public officials from voting on matters that financially benefit their associates.
NCGS § 14-234 (Public officials benefiting from contracts).
NCGS § 14-217 (Bribery of public officials).
NC lobbying disclosure laws (DGI/Matheny failed to register and report).
DGI's IRS form 990, attached, states; "FUNDS ARE USED TO POSITION THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AS AN ATTRACTIVE, VIBRANT DESTINATION FOR THOSE WHO WORK, PLAY AND LIVE HERE THROUGH PUBLIC SPACE MANAGEMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES, MARKETING SERVICES, SPECIAL EVENTS AND ADVOCACY ACTIVITIES."
Misuse of public funds (DGI’s questionable expenses without explanation of who and why).
Attached;
DGI's 1/30/2025 Bi Annual report proving lobbying activities which states;
"DGI has been instrumental in assisting with the navigation of various City departments as this project has unfolded."
"Ongoing assistance with the Carroll Companies and the anticipated Marriott AC Hotel"
"Our Economic Development Staff-comprised of the President/CEO, Vice President and our Economic Development Analyst-held 242 economic development and planning meetings in Q1 and Q2."
"DGI is currently working in conjunction with the City Manager’s Office, Parks and Recreation, GDOT and various other city departments on a major placemaking project at the J. Douglas Gaylon Depot..."
"DGI is always working to recruit new businesses to downtown through various avenues, including ...advocacy, serving as a liaison with city departments... Currently, DGI is working with several developers to facilitate ongoing development in the center city."
"DGI continues to serve in an advocacy capacity for our downtown business owners. Most recently, we provided valuable feedback to GDOT on the proposed fee increase for downtown parking and cited potential concerns related to the impact of those increases."
"In our role as a connector, DGI serves as a liaison between builders, developers, and investors and the appropriate stakeholders and governmental departments, including Economic Development, Permitting, Water & Sewer, Planning, GPD, GDOT, and GFD. Our economic development staff continue to meet regularly with developers and investors, helping them navigate the development process and connecting them with critical resources to advance their projects."
It was made clear at the meeting that illegal gifts have been flowing to City staff and elected officials from DGI and Matheny;
Greensboro City Council Meeting 6/3/2025
I said; "Their ledger shows over $40,000 in spending on perks: Haunted House tickets, Oyster Roast tickets, Swarm, Tanger, Grasshoppers, and Wyndham events. Then there’s meals with city officials, nonprofit leaders and Matheny political donors at Green Valley Grill, B Christopher’s, Pura Vida, Natty Greene’s, Undercurrent, Lucky 32, Print Works, Sushi Republic, Postino, Inka Grill and more. All on the public’s dime, paid for with our tax dollars."
If Zack Matheny and DGI spent a total of $60,000 on event tickets over the last three years, with tickets averaging $65 each, they could have distributed approximately 923 tickets ($60,000 ÷ $65 = 923.08). This represents a significant volume of event access that could influence relationships and create networking opportunities between public officials and private interests.
Matheny has been CEO of DGI since July, 2015.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/zack-matheny-27473613/
Zack Matheny has been a City Councilman since for the second time after resigning in 2015 to take his DGI position in 2015 to avoid a conflict of interest;
"A few months ago, I expressed interest in leading Downtown Greensboro Incorporated and have interviewed to become the organization's next President and CEO. Due to the nature of the discussions and my desire to avoid any perceived conflicts of interest, as of today, I plan to resign from City Council at the June 16 meeting."
https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/greensboro-councilman-zack-matheny-resigning-wants-to-be-head-of-dgi/83-223918723
And then;
"At the time, Matheny was advised by the city attorney that he could not serve on the City Council and as president of a nonprofit organization that received funding from the city."
"Chip Roth has announced he is running for the District 3 seat, and when it was rumored that Matheny was going to run for his old seat, Roth sent out a press release attacking Matheny for having a conflict of interest as the head of DGI."
https://www.rhinotimes.com/news/zack-wants-his-old-city-council-seat-back/
Meaning;
Violation of North Carolina Gift & Ethics Laws
A. NCGS § 138A-32 (Gift Ban for Public Officials & Employees)
Prohibition: Public officials and employees (including city council members and staff) cannot knowingly accept gifts from a "person" (including organizations like DGI) that:
Do business with the city (e.g., DGI receives taxpayer funding).
Lobby the city (if DGI advocates for policies benefiting specific developers).
Have financial interests affected by the official’s duties (e.g., Carroll’s property deals).
B. NCGS § 14-234 (Conflict of Interest for Public Officials)
Prohibition: Officials cannot participate in votes or decisions that financially benefit themselves, family, or business associates (e.g., Matheny voting as a Councilman on Carroll projects while a Carroll employee sat on DGI's board, while DGI funds Carroll’s ventures with taxpayer money after accepting campaign contributions).
Penalties: Class 1 misdemeanor (up to 120 days jail) or felony charges if corruption is proven.
C. NC Lobbying Laws (Unregistered Lobbying)
If DGI (under Matheny) is influencing city policy without registering as a lobbyist, it could violate NCGS § 120C-101.
Gifts to officials from unregistered lobbyists are explicitly banned.
If DGI is a city contractor (receiving taxpayer funded grants or managing downtown projects with public money), its meals for officials could be expressly forbidden.
3. Potential Criminal Implications
A. Bribery (NCGS § 14-218)
If gifts were given to influence official actions (e.g., DGI wining/dining officials coincident with Carroll-related votes), this could constitute bribery (a Class F felony).
On December 5, 2023, Zack Matheny charged a $300 lunch at Undercurrent Restaurant to his DGI American Express card for a meeting with powerful real estate developers and city contractors including Samet, Dick, Carroll, Hoyle, Baxter, Waldeck, and Smith, suggesting DGI was facilitating access between these private interests and the city councilman who votes on their projects.
B. Misuse of Public Funds (NCGS § 14-254)
If DGI used taxpayer money (e.g., city grants) to pay for officials’ meals, this could be embezzlement or fraud.
Zack Matheny misused taxpayer-funded DGI resources to wine and dine key city employees - spending $42.30 on December 21, 2023, to take Parks and Recreation's Josh Sherrick to Mellow Mushroom, and $44.30 on February 22, 2024, for a meal with Parks and Recreation Director Phil Flieshman at Cille & Scoe, essentially using public money to cultivate relationships with the very city staff who implement policies he votes on as a councilman.
Key Takeaway:
The repeated pattern of DGI (led by Matheny) funding meals for officials who later vote on Carroll’s projects creates a strong appearance of quid pro quo corruption. At minimum, this violates ethics laws; at worst, it could justify criminal charges.
If DGI staff, friends, or family members used event tickets purchased with taxpayer or organizational funds;
A. Misuse of Public Funds (NCGS § 14-254)
If DGI receives city funding (taxpayer money) and uses it to buy tickets for personal use (e.g., staff, friends, family), this could be considered embezzlement or misappropriation of public funds.
Example: If DGI used a city grant to buy concert/sports tickets and gave them to employees’ relatives instead of for official business, this could be illegal.
B. Violation of IRS Rules (Taxable Income)
Gifts of tickets to employees/friends may count as taxable income (IRS "fringe benefit" rules).
If DGI didn’t report these as income on W-2s/1099s, it could face IRS penalties.
Nonprofit Compliance Issues (If DGI is a 501(c)(3) or (c)(6))
Private Benefit Doctrine: Nonprofits cannot use funds for private gain (e.g., giving tickets to board members’ friends without a valid business reason).
IRS Form 990 Reporting: DGI must disclose related-party transactions (e.g., tickets given to insiders), which appears to not have happened if so.
If City Attorney Chuck Watts (who accepted at least $64.17 DGI-funded meal on 11/9/2023) advised Zack Matheny that he could vote on a Carroll-related matter—despite clear conflicts—this raises serious concerns about:
If Watts knew Matheny had a conflict (due to DGI’s financial ties to Carroll) but still approved his vote, this could be obstruction.
Obstruction of Justice (NCGS § 14-221)
Violation of NC State Bar Rules (Legal Ethics)
Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest): Watts had a personal conflict (he took DGI gifts) but still advised Matheny—a clear ethical breach.
Rule 8.4 (Misconduct): Knowingly giving bad legal advice to enable corruption violates attorney ethics.
Conspiracy to Violate Ethics Laws (NCGS § 14-223)
If Watts and Matheny colluded to bypass ethics rules, they could face felony conspiracy charges.
DGI’s Financial Ties to Carroll = Clear Conflict
DGI (led by Matheny) gave Carroll $4,313.53 in grants/meals.
Carroll donated $5,000 to Matheny’s campaign.
Carroll’s employee sits on DGI’s board.
Matheny voted to give Carroll city property (Bellemeade) at a loss to taxpayers.
NCGS § 138A-32 prohibits officials from voting on matters benefiting donors/business associates.
Watts’ Own Conflict (DGI Meal) Disqualifies Him
He cannot impartially advise on DGI/Matheny ethics issues because he took taxpayer funded gifts from the same organization.
He should have recused himself and let an independent attorney review the matter.
The Greensboro City Council should have hired an outside attorney (not Watts) to investigate.
When a city attorney has a conflict of interest due to receiving gifts from an organization under ethical scrutiny, yet fails to recuse himself and instead provides legal advice that clears that organization, it raises serious questions about;
Article 30 - Obstructing Justice (N.C.G.S. Chapter 14)
Various obstruction statutes could apply if Watts knowingly provided biased legal advice to impede proper investigation of ethics violations.
N.C. General Statute 14-234 (Self-Dealing/Conflicts of Interest)
If Watts received gifts from DGI while providing legal advice that benefited them, this could apply.
N.C. General Statute Chapter 138A (State Ethics Act)
The Ethics Act establishes conflict of interest standards, a ban against the acceptance of certain gifts by covered officials, and restricts the use of official positions for private gain. This would cover the gift acceptance and potential misuse of official position.
Article 31 - Misconduct in Public Office (N.C.G.S. Chapter 14)
This covers misconduct in public office Chapter 14 - Article 31 and could apply to a city attorney failing to perform duties impartially due to personal interests.
Professional Conduct Rules
North Carolina has special conflicts of interest rules for current government officers and employees Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers and Employees that could create attorney disciplinary issues for Watts.
The most directly applicable would likely be N.C.G.S. 14-234 for deriving benefit while administering government matters, and the State Ethics Act for gift acceptance and misuse of position.
The Pattern of Misconduct;
Watts received gifts from DGI, then provided legal advice clearing DGI and Matheny of ethical violations, while failing to disclose his conflict or recusing himself. This creates an appearance that he used his official position to protect an organization that provided him personal benefits, potentially obstructing proper oversight of public officials.
The city council's failure to recognize this obvious conflict and hire independent counsel suggests either negligence or complicity in allowing a compromised attorney to clear his own benefactors.
If the less detailed DGI meeting minutes show Zack knew he was lobbying, it suggests he deliberately began concealing his activities to avoid documentation that could expose illegal lobbying conduct. The sudden reduction in detail after his reelection indicates consciousness of guilt - he recognized that his dual role as both councilman and DGI leader created lobbying violations, so he started hiding the specifics of DGI's interactions with city government to avoid creating a paper trail of evidence. This pattern of concealment actually strengthens the case that he was aware his conduct violated lobbying laws and was attempting to cover his tracks.
Thanks,
g
.
.
And then;
"from: Vaughan, Nancy (Mayor)
to: George Hartzman, "Stansberry, Destiny", "Howell, Torie"
cc: "Lucas, Len", "Hightower, Sharon", "Wells, Goldie", "Holston, Hugh", "Thurm, Tammi", "Abuzuaiter, Marikay", "Harrell, Andrea", "Matheny, Zack", "Hoffmann, Nancy", "Pinder, Jamilla", "Watts, Chuck", "Davis, N.", "Wilson, Christian A (CMO)",
"Chilton, Eric", "Davis, Larry", "McCray, Nasha", "Thompson, John"
We have received your email. I understand that earlier you contacted and submitted information directly to the Greensboro Police Department (GPD) requesting an investigation.
In accordance with their standard procedure, when an elected official is involved, GPD has referred the matter to the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI)...
In that sense, your objective of initiating an independent formal review process has been achieved"
.
.
My Reply;
"The filing of a complaint with external agencies does not negate or eliminate the obligations of the Greensboro City Clerk under Section D of Greensboro’s Code of Ethics (Resolution 2021-172) or North Carolina Public Records Law...
Local Code Requirements Still Apply
Section D of the City's Code of Ethics clearly outlines the City Clerk’s obligations upon receiving a properly formatted ethics complaint. The complaint must be:
Filed with the City Clerk;
Specific in facts and alleged violations;...
No “Preemption” Clause in the Ethics Code
There is nothing in Section D or the related municipal code suggesting that a complaint to an external agency cancels out or delays the City's responsibility to process ethics complaints internally.
Therefore:
If a complaint is properly submitted to the Greensboro City Clerk, the City must follow its own ethics complaint procedures as outlined in the Code of Ethics, even if the same allegations are under review by state or federal agencies.
If the City fails to do so, it may itself be in violation of its own code, and that failure could be subject to further legal or public accountability...
The Greensboro Police Department (GPD) should not have informed the Mayor about an ethics complaint filed against the Mayor—especially before the formal ethics review process has been followed, and especially if the Mayor is the subject of the complaint.
Doing so undermines the integrity of the process and could amount to inappropriate disclosure, obstruction, or retaliation risk depending on the context.
Why It’s Problematic
1. Conflict of Interest and Undue Influence
If the Mayor and the City Attorney is named in the GPD complaint:
Notifying them prematurely gives the Mayor and the City Attorney a chance to interfere, retaliate, or shape the narrative.
If a law enforcement agency informs the subject of a complaint (especially a powerful official like the Mayor) before due process, it may:
Expose the complainant to retaliation,
Create a chilling effect on whistleblowing,
If the complaint is criminal in nature (e.g., bribery, retaliation, abuse of office), and the Mayor is tipped off before law enforcement or an independent investigator has acted:
That’s not just unethical—it could be obstruction of justice under North Carolina law (see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-221.1).
Especially if the disclosure results in:
Evidence being altered or destroyed,
Witnesses being contacted or influenced,
Retaliation against the complainant...
This type of coordinated disclosure between subjects of a complaint is exactly what the ethics code is designed to prevent, and it warrants an immediate independent investigation.
.
"George Hartzman
Wed, May 28, 12:22 PM (10 days ago)
to Chuck, bcc: eric, bcc: Nancy.Vaughan, bcc: Sharon, bcc: Goldie, bcc: Hugh, bcc: Tammi, bcc: Marikay, bcc: N., bcc: Sue, bcc: Zack.Matheny etc...
Formal Demand for Recusal of Councilmembers and City employees Who Accepted Gifts from DGI
Dear Mayor Vaughan and Members of the Greensboro City Council,
New evidence reveals an expanding pattern of illegal gift acceptance from Downtown Greensboro Inc. (DGI) by both elected officials and city employees.
The attached City Council Economic Interest Disclosures don't detail any of the gifts.
I formally request that any Councilmember or City employee who has accepted gifts, meals, tickets, or other benefits from Downtown Greensboro Inc. (DGI) must immediately recuse themselves from all votes, discussions, and decisions involving DGI’s funding, contracts, or oversight...
Legal and Ethical Basis for Recusal
Violation of N.C.G.S. § 138A-32 (Gift Ban)
North Carolina law strictly prohibits public officials from accepting gifts from organizations that receive government funding or lobby the government.
DGI is a taxpayer-funded nonprofit that illegally lobbies the City Council amongst others via Zack Matheny and other DGI unregistered employees.
No gifts from lobbyists are permitted ($0 threshold)
Records show multiple Councilmembers, including Mayor Vaughan and Councilmember Hoffmann, accepted meals paid for by DGI. These constitute illegal undisclosed gifts under state law.
Accepting gifts from DGI—which relies on city funding—creates a direct conflict when voting on its budget or policies...
IRS Rules (Tax-Exempt Misconduct)
DGI, as a 501(c)(3), cannot provide private benefits to public officials.
Evidence of Improper Gifts
Mayor Nancy Vaughan: $62.49 meal at Undercurrent (9/29/23).
City Manager Taiwo Jaiyeoba: $43.08 meal at Liberty Oak (9/27/23).
Councilmember Nancy Hoffmann: $55.53 meal at Print Works Bistro (3/7/24).
11/09/2023: $64.17 meal for Chuck Watts, City Attorney
Josh Sherrick (Parks & Rec Events Manager); $42.30 meal at Mellow Mushroom (12/21/2023)
Conflict: Oversees city events that coordinate with DGI
Phil Flieshman (Parks & Rec Director); $44.30 meal at Cille & Scoe (02/22/2024)
Conflict: Approves permits/partnerships benefiting DGI..."
.
N.C.G.S. § 138A-32 ("No Gifts" Rule); Strict Prohibition: Public officials/employees cannot accept anything of value from:
Government contractors (DGI receives city funds)
Public officials and employees are prohibited from accepting anything of value from individuals or entities that have financial interests or contracts with the government.
This includes gifts, meals, tickets, favors, or any other tangible or intangible benefits.
Because DGI receives city funds and may have ongoing contracts or financial relationships with the city, it qualifies as a restricted source under this law.
$0 Threshold: Even a $1 coffee is illegal if funded by these groups.
The prohibition applies to any value, no matter how small.
Exceptions: Nothing for lobbyists/their clients (DGI qualifies as both).
There is no minimum dollar threshold or de minimis exception under this rule.
In essence, under N.C.G.S. § 138A-32, public officials and employees:
Cannot accept anything of value from government contractors or lobbyists, including DGI;
No exceptions exist for nominal or minor gifts;
.
Demanded Actions;
The City’s Internal Investigation Should Proceed Immediately
The law mandates that once a complaint is received with sufficient detail, it must be forwarded for independent internal review.
Failure to act would:
Violate adopted city procedure;
Undermine public trust;
Expose the city to legal liability for dereliction of duty or cover-up.
In contrast, the City’s ethics process serves a distinct role:
Ensuring integrity and public confidence in local governance;
Applying city-specific rules, such as those in the Code of Ethics, gift policies, or conflicts of interest;
Recommending local sanctions or reforms that external agencies have no authority to impose (e.g., censures, disqualification from votes, public reprimands).
The City of Greensboro has direct authority to investigate its own elected officials, employees, and funded organizations (like DGI). While state or federal agencies may take months—or years—to resolve an investigation, the City can:
Act promptly to prevent ongoing harm;
Impose interim measures to protect the public;
Preserve and review records before they are lost, deleted, or altered.
Failure to Investigate Appears as Obstruction or Complicity
If the City refuses to begin an internal investigation because other agencies are involved, it risks:
Appearing to stall or evade accountability;
Undermining the public’s right to timely local enforcement;
Creating the perception of collusion or political favoritism;
Damaging the integrity of the city’s own Code of Ethics.
An internal ethics investigation does not hinder outside agencies—it can actually aid and complement their work:
Preserving evidence,
Identifying additional witnesses,
Making timely referrals of facts discovered.
Parallel review is common and appropriate when jurisdictions are distinct (ethics vs. criminal law).
Delaying an internal ethics investigation until outside agencies act would:
Violate the City’s legal and ethical duties;
Risk covering up misconduct;
Fail to protect the public from immediate harm;
Undermine accountability for those entrusted with public power.
The City must act now, not later, to uphold its own laws and the trust of the people it serves.
.
Immediate Recusal: Any official who accepted DGI-funded benefits must abstain from:
Votes on DGI’s budget, contracts, or policies.
Closed-session discussions about DGI.
Appointments to DGI’s board or related committees.
Public Disclosure:
Release all records of DGI-provided meals, tickets, or perks to officials and employees.
Confirm recusals in meeting minutes.
Update City Council Economic Interest Disclosures.
Thanks,
g
.
George Hartzman Sat, Jun 7, 3:13 PM
to Nancy, Tony, Sue, Destiny, Torie, Len, Sharon, Goldie, Hugh, Tammi, Marikay, Andrea, Zack, Nancy, Jamilla, Chuck, N., Christian, Eric, Larry, Nasha, John, Jennifer, JKwame opata, rosetta.davis, Lora, Rikesia.williams, brent.ducharme, emily.guarascio, shannon.stevens, erin.nelson
Madame Mayor,
By disclosing the details of my complaint—including sensitive information about my allegations and identity—to individuals who are named in or implicated by the GPD complaint, you have seriously compromised my personal safety and well-being.
This breach of confidentiality has exposed me to potential threats, intimidation, harassment, and retaliation from parties with a direct interest in suppressing or undermining my claims.
Such reckless actions have not only violated established ethical protocols but have also placed me in a position of real and imminent physical and emotional danger. I fear for my safety and that of those close to me as a direct consequence of your irresponsible disclosure.
I request a timeline and clear explanation of how the City will proceed with the complaint filed with the City Clerk and protect my rights and safety throughout the process.
You have put my life in danger.
g
.
from: Vaughan, Nancy (Mayor) Jun 7, 2025, 4:23 PM
to: George Hartzman
cc: "Baker, Tony", "Schwartz, Sue" "Stansberry, Destiny" "Howell, Torie" "Lucas, Len" "Hightower, Sharon" "Wells, Goldie" "Holston, Hugh" "Thurm, Tammi" "Abuzuaiter, Marikay" "Harrell, Andrea" "Matheny, Zack" "Hoffmann, Nancy" "Pinder, Jamilla", "Watts, Chuck", "Davis, N.", "Wilson, Christian A (CMO)", "Chilton, Eric" "Davis, Larry", "McCray, Nasha", "Thompson, John", "Smith-Sutphin, Jennifer", "Opata, J Kwame", "Davis, Rosetta", "Cubbage, Lora", "Williams, Rikesia", "Ducharme, Brent", "Guarascio, Emily", "Stevens, Shannon", "Nelson, Erin"
...You have been very vocal with your complaints including your comments at city council meetings.
I[n] your own words there is a “deepening compliance investigation”.
Sent from my iPhone
.
My Reply;
Please stop digging.
You need to not contact me.
You are named in the complaint.
You cause yourself more harm each time you interact with me.
The independent investigation head should be who makes contact.
g
Disclaimer: This report draws on publicly available records, official audits, vendor payment data, and election filings to highlight apparent gaps in oversight and potential conflicts involving publicly funded expenditures. Some financial records were not made available by the City of Greensboro or Downtown Greensboro, Inc. at the time of publication. As a result, certain spending remains undocumented in official reviews. References to individuals, businesses, or political campaigns are made strictly in the context of matters of public concern. No conclusions are offered beyond what the documented evidence supports, and any implications regarding intent, legality, or ethics are left for readers to assess based on the disclosed facts.