How to Mislead City Council and the Mayor, by Greensboro's Legal Department
On October 21, 2025, Zack Matheny should have recused himself on Agenda Items I.9 and I.10
from: George Hartzman
to: “Cubbage, Lora” nancy.vaughan trey.davis cc: “Opata, J Kwame” james.dickens “Davis, Rosetta” “Ducharme, Brent” “Guarascio, Emily” fabiana.oliveira drew.robb “Nelson, Erin” zack.matheny, “Hoffmann, Nancy” “Pinder, Jamilla” “Hightower, Sharon” “Holston, Hugh” “Wells, Goldie” “Thurm, Tammi” “Abuzuaiter, Marikay” “Davis, Larry” “Harrell, Andrea”
date: Oct 22, 2025, 3:08 PM [edited for publication]
Last night, Mayor Vaughan and Lora Cubbage said “direct” and “recuse”, which the statute doesn’t say.
The specific text of § 160A-75(a) does not contain the word “direct” or “recuse.”
It says “excused” and “the member’s own financial interest.”
City Attorney Lora Cubbage also says “recuse” and “direct”, which are factual inexactitudes;
Ҥ 160A-75. Voting.
(a) 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 under G.S. 14-234 or G.S. 160D-109.”
The law states that city council members must vote on nearly every issue that comes before them. They are not allowed to abstain (refuse to vote) unless they have a very specific, legally recognized conflict of interest.
The primary command is that “No member shall be excused from voting...” This means a council member cannot simply choose to abstain because an issue is controversial, difficult or personally uncomfortable.
I’m not arguing for abstention, I’m arguing for recusal.
“§ 160A‑86. Local governing boards’ code of ethics.
(a) Governing boards of cities... shall adopt a resolution or policy containing a code of ethics to guide actions by the governing board members in the performance of the member’s official duties as a member of that governing board.
(b) The resolution or policy required by subsection (a) of this section shall address at least all of the following:
(1) The need to obey all applicable laws regarding official actions taken as a board member.
(2) The need to uphold the integrity and independence of the board member’s office.
(3) The need to avoid impropriety in the exercise of the board member’s official duties.
(4) The need to faithfully perform the duties of the office...”
§ 160A‑86 says Zack needed to recuse himself, not excuse himself, but recuse, which he didn’t with the silent approval of the rest of city council at the behest Mayor Vaughan and City Attorney Lora Cubbage.
“§ 160D‑109. Conflicts of interest.
(a) Governing Board. – A governing board member shall not vote on any legislative decision regarding a development regulation adopted pursuant to this Chapter where the outcome of the matter being considered is reasonably likely to have a direct, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on the member.
A governing board member shall not vote on any zoning amendment if the landowner of the property subject to a rezoning petition or the applicant for a text amendment is a person with whom the member has a close familial, business, or other associational relationship.”
§ 160D‑109 says Zack should have recused himself on multiples of development items, which three City Attorneys allowed him to not do, beginning with Chuck Watts, who received illegal taxpayer funded gifts from Matheny via DGI.
UNC School of Government commentary on ethics ordinances (Benjamin Hitchings & Adam Lovelady, “Conflicts of Interest,” UNC SOG, June, 2020) states;
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.”
“...Strengthen State Minimums. A local government may establish more stringent local ethics requirements. A local government may find benefit in establishing additional ethical requirements beyond what state law currently requires.”
Supporting Case
A local ordinance is valid unless it “expressly conflicts with state law or clearly frustrates the purpose of a state statute.”
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.
A local ethics code can impose stricter requirements on officials without contradicting state law, as long as it doesn’t legalize something state law forbids or forbid something state law explicitly requires.
§ 14-234 Establishes the Criminal Floor as a criminal prohibition. A robust local ethics code does not contradict § 14-234; it supplements and strengthens it by addressing a wider range of conduct that, while not necessarily criminal, undermines public trust.
§ 14-234 doesn’t contradict Greensboro’s Code of Ethics or City Charter.
A Local Code of Ethics (mandated by § 160A-86) and other statutes (§ 160D-109) create a framework for recusal. Recusal is a broader, proactive ethical duty that involves fully removing oneself from the decision-making process, which includes but is not limited to voting.
§ 160A-86 (Local Code of Ethics) requires the city to adopt a code of ethics to “avoid impropriety” and “uphold the integrity” of the office. This statute is the state’s explicit grant of authority for a city to impose ethical standards on top of basic legal requirements.
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.
§ 160D-109 (Zoning Conflicts) is a specific, concrete example where the General Assembly itself has defined a broader set of conflicts (including “close familial, business, or other associational relationship”) that require recusal, going beyond a simple “direct financial interest.”
There is no contradiction. The statutes create a tiered system;
Criminal Floor (§ 14-234): Prohibits “direct benefits” under penalty of law.
Voting Minimum (§ 160A-75): Does not excuse a member from voting “except upon matters involving the consideration of the member’s own financial interest”.
Ethical Ceiling (§ 160A-86 & Local Code): Empowers and requires the city to create a code that mandates a higher standard of conduct, including recusal to avoid the appearance of conflicts and to uphold public integrity.
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 bans officials from taking part in financial decisions where they or their associates hold a direct or indirect interest.
When Mayor Vaughan and City Attorney Cubbage focused solely on the narrow, criminal-standard word “direct,” a word which doesn’t appear in the statute, they ignored the broader ethical framework that the state itself has mandated local governments to create and enforce.
My argument is not that a council member should abstain from a difficult vote. It’s that, under the city’s own state-mandated ethical duties, a member should recuse themselves from participation when a situation creates a reasonable apprehension of a conflict, even if that conflict is not a “direct” financial interest as defined in the criminal code.
I would like to meet and confer on this subject as soon as practicable as early voting has already begun, and the election is on November 4th.
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. [DGI’s contract with the city is in violation of rule 5.2]
…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.”
