No one who was on staff when the paper-stealing incident occured is there anymore, making your proposal unnecessary.
Also, 'conflict of interest' refers to situations when the parties have a monied interest in something, not necessarily a grudge.
Most DC staffers who were there at the time and worked there afterward will likely tell you they think Bates has done a decent job as mayor. He's restored order to the governing body and presided over some tough economic times. Of course his mishandling of the parcel tax campaign in '03 is a black mark not forgotten by City Hall watchers.
 

The point is to rub his face in it. The excuse need not be legitimate or necessary.

Geez, some people just don't have the "scheme" gene.

Does the Daily Cal really have that little institutional coherency? Does the fact that it happened under "someone else's watch" make it not an insult to them?
 

Ahh point taken.
In terms of Institutional Coherency, I'd say most are aware of it and shake their heads at the stories others tell. But, as far as I know, no one is sharpening their knives over it.
It's old news -- it's been years. It's something in the past. Only a fool would still be pissed at it.
Besides, when you're in the news biz, you get used to people insulting you eveyday. People who take stuff personally shouldn't be in news. You have to know how to shake it off.
It was never about insult, it was about letting the people decide whether the editorial that sparked the incident was valid. And, it was about damaging the DC's ability to do business in town. Remember, lots of people who paid to advertise their businesses in that edition lost out on what they paid for.