Wanted: successful entrepreneur who lives in a cave:
I want a C-suite executive, someone who knows how to manage an operation, particularly someone who has done a startup or turnaround. Because a startup is what it is. Secondly, someone who’s passionate about North Carolina.
I’ve looked at some candidates from outside of the state, but in this initial assignment, it needs to be someone who understands the culture and some of the change we’re going through. I also want someone who has not been engaged in the political process.
Bolding mine, but it may not be as bold a statement as it seems. Here's a question that should tickle your conspiracy theorist bone if you have one: if we're not allowed to know the identity of the donors to McCrory's Renew North Carolina Foundation shadow businessmen association, which has been running hundreds of thousands in television commercials supporting the Governor, how are we to know if Decker's eventual choice for CEO isn't one of these men? The answer: we won't. More promises:
So all of the grant-making will stay on the public side. The privatized sales and marketing functions will not do the grant-making themselves. They will work with the client, identify what the opportunity is, and then the grant-making function on the public side will manage that process. That’s one place a number of states didn’t do well.
We’re going to have in our bylaws the caveat that if you’re on the (partnership) board and your company is coming forward with a grant, you’ve got to remove yourself from that conversation.
Again, bolding mine. As to the first claim, if the privatized side is the one "working with the clients", that means the public side will (only) have a predetermined group of businesses to choose from when deciding their grant-making. That's not a "public" decision, it's a whitewash, and it's something you'd expect to see in a corrupt third-world regime.
As to the second claim: that usually only happens in fiction, or in some small town where a developer or other businessman holds a monopoly over what's being contracted. In most cases of corruption, businessmen scratch each others' backs via patronage or silent partnerships, and you can chase your tail all day long trying to find a direct connection. The wording of the caveat needs to be much more encompassing, to the point where if a board member has ever shaken hands with the prospective grantee, an ethics discussion should at least take place.
I don't expect something that rigorous, but the sheer potential for conflicts of interest with this group demands broad and diverse ethical guidelines and restrictions.