Greensboro’s Ethics Code Holds Council Members to a Higher Standard Than State Law
Conflict of Interest Objection; Agenda Item I.9 (October 21, 2025)
When a city council member casts a vote that could benefit someone with power over their own paycheck, it’s more than bad optics, it’s an ethical violation.
That’s the question now facing Greensboro City Councilman Zack Matheny, whose dual role as a paid executive of Downtown Greensboro Inc. (DGI) and elected city official has raised eyebrows over potential conflicts of interest.
Earlier this year, the City Council voted on an agenda item involving public funds directed to a company owned by developer Arthur Samet, who also sits on the board of DGI, the taxpayer-funded nonprofit that determines Matheny’s salary, benefits, and employment status.
Samet Corporation, a financial sponsor and “Silver Partner” of DGI, enjoys a privileged relationship with the organization’s leadership. This connection is exemplified by Arthur Samet’s personal donation to Zack Matheny’s political on August 6, 2025.
In that vote, Matheny participated.
The Law vs. The Code
Under North Carolina law (G.S. 14-234), a public official is prohibited from participating in or influencing a contract that provides them or their business a direct financial benefit. The law is criminal in nature, a violation can void the contract and carry misdemeanor penalties.
But state law defines conflicts narrowly. Unless an official or their spouse profits directly, the statute doesn’t always apply.
That’s where Greensboro’s local ethics code steps in.
Adopted under G.S. 160A-86, the city’s “Code of Ethics, Gift Policy, and Disclosure Requirements for the Mayor and City Council” goes further than state law.
The policy demands that council members;
“act with integrity and independence from improper influence,”
“avoid impropriety in the exercise of their official duties,” and
ensure their actions are “above reproach.”
In plain terms: even if no money changes hands, city leaders are expected to avoid the appearance of a conflict.
That’s a higher bar and it’s legal. North Carolina cities can adopt stricter ethics rules than state law, but not weaker ones. State law sets the floor; Greensboro’s code raises the ceiling.
An Appearance Problem
The ethical issue is not whether Matheny personally profits from Samet’s company, it’s whether his official judgment can appear to be compromised when voting on matters tied to someone who influences his own compensation and employment.
That relationship, experts say, falls squarely under the “improper influence” and “appearance of impropriety” language in Greensboro’s ethics policy.
Recusal, formally abstaining from the vote and disclosing the relationship, is the appropriate response.
Yet records show Matheny has repeatedly voted on issues where DGI or its board members have financial interests, blurring the line between public service and private advantage.
Public Trust and Accountability
The Greensboro code reminds elected officials that;
“Trust and respect must continually be earned.”
That trust is shaken when potential conflicts are ignored, even if they skirt the letter of the law.
City residents have a right to expect that public funds are allocated on merit, not through overlapping networks of influence between City Hall and downtown business interests.
In this case, the law might not require recusal.
But Greensboro’s own ethics policy, and the public’s sense of fairness, clearly do.
There is precedent and statutory authority in North Carolina that explicitly supports the idea that local ethics codes can be more restrictive than state law, so long as they don’t conflict with or weaken it.
1. The governing statute — G.S. § 160A-86
This is the law that requires every North Carolina city to adopt a code of ethics for its governing board.
It’s unambiguous that local governments can go beyond the state’s minimum requirements:
“Each local governing board shall adopt a resolution or policy containing a code of ethics… governing the performance of the members of the board as they exercise the authority and discharge the responsibilities of their respective offices.”
“This section does not limit the authority of a governing board to adopt requirements and prohibitions that are more stringent than this section requires.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-86(b)
That final sentence is the precedent in black and white;
Local governments may adopt stricter ethical standards than state law provides.
So even if state statutes like § 14-234 only address direct financial conflicts, Greensboro can, and has, required council members to avoid even the appearance of influence or impropriety.
2. UNC School of Government guidance
The UNC School of Government (which provides legal education to local officials) have confirmed that principle repeatedly;
UNC School of Government commentary on ethics ordinances (Benjamin Hitchings & Adam Lovelady, “Conflicts of Interest,” UNC SOG, June, 2020) states;
“A board member must not vote on a decision if the outcome would have a direct, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on the board member...
The statutory conflict of interest provisions set the floor for conflict of interest standards. Local governments may choose to add stricter conflict provisions. ...Additionally, note that these conflict of interest standards are in addition to, not replacing, other various legal and ethical limitations.”
3. Supporting Cases
A local ordinance is valid unless it “expressly conflicts with state law or clearly frustrates the purpose of a state statute.”
State v. Williams, 283 N.C. 550 (1973); King v. Town of Chapel Hill, 367 N.C. 400 (2014);
In King v. Chapel Hill, the Court held that a town could regulate more strictly than the state unless the ordinance directly contradicted state law.
By analogy, a local ethics code may be more restrictive, as long as it doesn’t legalize what the state forbids or forbid what the state requires.
That’s exactly how local ethics codes work; they tighten standards without contradicting state prohibitions.
4. In practice; adopted across NC
Dozens of cities, including Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham, and Greensboro have adopted ethics policies that go beyond state law.
They all rely on § 160A-86 as their authority to do so.
For instance;
Charlotte’s code requires officials to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety.”
Raleigh’s policy mandates recusal “when impartiality may reasonably be questioned.”
Greensboro uses nearly identical language, all more restrictive than the state’s narrow “direct benefit” rule in § 14-234.
There is clear statutory authority (§ 160A-86), and UNC SOG guidance and case law logic (King v. Chapel Hill) supporting that local ethics codes in North Carolina may be more restrictive than state law, but cannot be weaker or inconsistent with it.
Conflict of Interest Objection; Agenda Item I.9 (October 21, 2025)
The City of Greensboro’s Conflict of Interest Policy explicitly prohibits any officer from “participating in the selection, award or administration of a contract supported by federal, state or city funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved.”
That policy mirrors Section 4.131 of the City Charter and North Carolina General Statutes §14-234, which ban officials from taking part in financial decisions where they or their associates hold a direct or indirect interest.
Yet, on October 21, the Council is scheduled to vote on Agenda Item I.9, authorizing a $70,314.23 payment to Samet Corporation for the Windsor Chavis Nocho Community Complex.
Councilmember Zack Matheny, who leads the publicly funded Downtown Greensboro Inc. (DGI), should not participate in this vote, as Samet Corporation’s owner, Arthur Samet, serves on DGI’s board, a body with influence over Matheny’s salary and tenure.
This relationship meets the City’s definition of an apparent conflict of interest and violates the policy’s requirement that officers remain “free from all conflicts of interest, whether real or apparent.” To preserve public trust and comply with both state and local ethics rules, Matheny must recuse himself from any discussion or vote on the Samet contract.
From the City of Greensboro’s Personnel Policy Manual
“Conflict of Interest; Number: B-22; Revision: 2; Effective Date: 06-01-2018
1.0 POLICY
In order to preserve the public trust of the residents whom the City serves, it is the policy of the City of Greensboro to avoid financial transactions that create an actual or apparent conflict of interest.
2.0 PURPOSE
It is essential for the City of Greensboro’s officers, employees and agents to remain free from all conflicts of interest, whether real or apparent. Additionally, Section 4.131 of the City Charter and North Carolina State law prohibits City officers, employees and agents from voting upon or otherwise participating in the selection, award or administration of contracts in which they have a direct or indirect financial interest.
As a condition of receiving federal and state grant funds, the City is required to have a Conflict of Interest policy that specifies certain conditions that necessitates a finding that a conflict of interest exists. This policy addresses these concerns and complies with all applicable federal and state conflict of interest laws.
4.0 DEFINITIONS
4.1 Officer - An individual who is elected to or appointed to serve or represent the City of Greensboro, other than an employee or independent contractor of the City...
5.0 ORGANIZATIONAL RULES
...5.2 The City may not enter into a financial relationship with any firm whenever an employee, officer, agent or member of their immediate family receives income or commission from the proposed transaction with the City.
…5.6 No officer, employee or agent of the City, and no sub-grantee or sub-recipient of any federal or state funds from the City shall participate in the selection or in the award or administration of a contract supported by federal, state or city funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved. Such a conflict of interest would arise when any of the following persons or entities has a financial or other interest in the firm selected for the award:
(i) The employee, officer, agent
(ii) Any member of the employee’s immediate family,
(iii) The employee’s partner, or
(iv) An organization which employs, or is about to employ, anyone listed in (i) through (iii) above.”