GREENSBORO

City Attorney City of Greensboro

DATE:

Julvp<.201
n

TO:
FROM:

City Council
Thomas D. Carruthers, Acting City Attorney

SUBJECT:

Conflict of Councilpersons Vaughan and Matheny

On May 2,2011, City Attorney Rita Danish accepted and adopted the opinion ofFrayda
Bluestein, UNC School of Government, that Zack Matheny was conflicted from voting on
further landfill issues. His conflict was noted to arise from his employment at Bell Partners, Inc.

His employer is involved in a development project with D.H. Griffin. The owners ofthis company possess a material interest in Gate City Waste Services. Itwas determined that this significant interest ofthe employer presents a conflict involving Councilman Matheny's own
financial interest as an employee.

Councilperson Vaughan possesses a conflict as well. Her husband is on retainer to legally represent Waste Industries. Her husband's significant interest presents a conflict for
Councilperson Vaughan.

Council isnow ready to issue a third RFP in the sequence ofconsidering solid waste disposal

options for the City. This RFP will allow a private contractor to operate the currently permitted phase III ofour landfill for the next three to ten years. The second RFP in this sequence is still
valid, though thethird RFP essentially replaces thesecond RFP.

This new RFP is open to all bidders, but contains a very compressed time schedule to analyze and respond to this request. The two last potential contractors under the second RFP are Gate City Waste Services and Waste Industries. Itis widely expected these corporations and others
will respond to this RFP as well.

As a general rule RFP's do not present conflicts. They are solicitations and the responses to these
solicitations create the conflict. This is exactly what occurred inthe second RFP. These conflicts
arose and cannot nowbe ignored. This bell cannot be "un rung".

One Governmental Plaza, PO Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136 336-373-CITY (2489)

In addition, both Councilpersons relate they personally feel they are conflicted from voting on
this RFP. This reason stated isthat a vote against this RFP isa vote against the economic
this reason.

interest with which they hold aconflict. They are constrained from voting against this RFP for

Frayda Bluestein recognizes that negative implications of votes can create avalid conflict. In essence they do not have the free choice to vote "yes" or "no" in the public interest. This is the
essence of conflict.

In addition, this was the procedure followed at the previous Council meeting in which I served as Acting City Attorney. In that meeting the motion to draft and issue the third RFP was made by Councilman Thompson, and passed 4to 3. Councilpersons Matheny and Vaughan were present
and did not votedue to this conflict. At thattime no concerns were raised regarding this
procedure.

For these reasons the conflict remains, and Councilperson Matheny and Vaughan are unable to
vote on the modification and issuance of this third RFP.

cc: Rashad M. Young, City Manager Bob Morgan, Deputy City Manager Andrew Scott, Assistant City Manager Denise Turner, Assistant City Manager

Michael Speedling, Assistant City Manager

Nelsie Smith, Assistant to the Manager

One Governmental Plaza, PO Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136 336-373-CITY (2489)