Letter to the Editor: Even after GA session, problems in Seaford remain unresolved

Editor’s note: The following was also sent to Sen. Bryant Richardson and Rep. Danny Short, both R-Seaford.

At the June 13 Seaford City Council meeting, during public comment, I reminded the mayor and Council of three looming self-inflicted problems, two of which (House bills 107 and 121) resided in the Delaware General Assembly. Then, Mayor David Genshaw said no to hearing compromise proposals to deal with these problems.

The problems

1. Facing investigation(s) for possible violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act by requiring in-person presentations of public comment.
2. Defeat and/or repudiation in the Delaware General Assembly of its charter change proposal to allow nonperson voting in municipal elections.
3. Serious questions in the Delaware General Assembly about the motivation behind its charter change proposal to eliminate referendum approval by 5,020 voters in favor of five members of City Council to spend millions.

General Assembly actions

First, the saga of Seaford’s proposed charter change to allow nonperson voting in municipal elections (HB 121): HB 121 was defeated in the House of Representatives on June 29; protesting Republicans, including Rep. Danny Short, R-Seaford, then walked out of the House, threatening to disrupt the state capital budget process. The next day, HB 121 was resurrected in the House and the previous day’s defeat rescinded; and finally, after Republican blackmail threats on the bond bill, nonperson voting was passed in the House on June 30.

However, nonperson voting (HB 121) never made it to a required vote in the Delaware Senate. Therefore, nonperson voting in Seaford is like zombie dead (with a large group of people watching for any signs of “life”).

Second, all the accompanying negative attention/focus on Seaford could have upset chances for final passage of Seaford’s other controversial charter change to eliminate (some) referendums’ approval for massive spending (HB 107).

However, after a last-minute introduction on the last day of the General Assembly session, the Senate passed HB 107, allowing elimination of referendum approval by 5,000 Seaford voters for (some) infrastructure spending.

Post-GA action analysis

One self-inflicted problem for the mayor and City Council was addressed by the relegation of nonperson voting to purgatory-like status. Putting aside red herring nonperson voting uncovers and underscores the real problem: getting 3,500-plus eligible nonvoters out to vote in Seaford municipal elections! No longer should attempts to enfranchise 230-plus nonpersons be used to mask/hide or diminish the real problem.

Justifying the elimination of 5,000-plus citizen votes by referendum is now squarely in the hands of the mayor and City Council. A skeptical public remains to be convinced of an actual “critical” need to exercise such power by only five city councilmen.

Mayor Genshaw finally recognized that past ethical/legal transgressions in Seaford (right to work, fetal remains, etc.) have made many observers uncertain and wary when he said, “Why are you (the General Assembly) picking on Seaford?”

Finally, legal action(s) to resolve possible Americans With Disabilities Act violations are proceeding. Is the city of Seaford headed down the path it took with the illegal fetal-remains ordinance, which was shot down in the Delaware Court of Chancery in June 2022, after Seaford expended at least $18,500 of taxpayer monies?

Dan Cannon

Seaford