On June 29, 2022, “Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster ruled that the city cannot enact a law that conflicts directly with law established by the state” (“Seaford’s fetal-remains ordinance overturned,” June 29).
Seaford had passed a law which attempted to regulate fetal remains resulting from abortions and/or miscarriages. Among other aspects, the mandate specified only cremation or burial and placed the financial burden on women who lost a fetus, with no exception for the criminal acts of rape or incest.
Was this court decision unexpected? No! Even we laypeople without formal legal training could spot the obvious conflicts of the Seaford statute with state laws.
Moreover, Delaware’s Department of Justice and Attorney General Kathleen Jennings had specifically noticed and warned the city and its sycophantic city solicitor Dan Griffith that the city’s ordinance was in conflict with Delaware law. Nevertheless and with supreme arrogance, Mayor David Genshaw and three of five City Council members tried to play a game with the Justice Department by delaying the passage of the ordinance by two months and then immediately voting a revocable, indefinite “stay” of enforcement on Dec. 30, 2021.
Attorney General Jennings didn’t buy Seaford’s gamesmanship and swiftly rejected Seaford’s erroneous claim(s) that it had tried to work with the Department of Justice when she filed suit against the city on Jan. 11, 2022. The expenses incurred by the department are now the responsibility of the loser — the city of Seaford.
However, Genshaw and City Council comrades Dan Henderson, Matt MacCoy and Orlando Holland apparently have little/no concern over the impact of tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses during this lost-cause effort. Genshaw had already announced an illegal deal he had made with an anonymous donor, who would fund any litigation costs for the city — in clear violation of the city’s charter.
Judge Laster’s consideration of and decision-making in this case did not take place before the April reelections of Genshaw and MacCoy, prime movers of the illegal ordinance. However, reflecting the importance of this case, Laster’s decision came within six weeks of the court hearing, virtually a lightspeed response, after the Justice Department request that the case be expedited.
Certainly Genshaw, Henderson, Holland and MacCoy are left with a lot of egg on their faces, the first three for a second time. Genshaw, Henderson and Holland are batting 0-for-2, since their previous effort to establish an illegal “right-to-work” law was smashed by the Delaware legislature about four years ago.
But where does this leave us, the citizens of Seaford?
Does the introduction and adoption of an illegal ordinance by the mayor and a majority of the City Council constitute a violation of their oaths of office and thus of laws by which they are obligated to abide? If so, should they be prosecuted? Censured?
Does the introduction and adoption of an illegal and ethically dubious ordinance, as well as the approval of an illegal contract with an anonymous donor (for funding resulting in legal problems), constitute egregious violation of normal ethical/moral standards? Should the mayor and the majority of the City Council resign in disgrace?
As tax-paying citizens, we demand that the city of Seaford publish a full accounting of the money which has been spent/will be spent in the frivolous pursuit of this illegal ordinance.
Crucially, we Seaford taxpayers demand to know the specific sources of money that has been, is being or will be used to pay for the city’s legal fees/other expenses incurred during this nefarious quest by Genshaw, Henderson, Holland and MacCoy. Are we expected to pay for their gross arrogance? We also demand to know the identity of an anonymous donor fund the inevitable litigation which resulted from this illegal City Council act.
Furthermore, since the contract with this anonymous donor was not approved by City Council, in direct violation to the city of Seaford’s charter, this “dark money” (as per Attorney General Jennings) cannot legally be used to pay the city’s legal bills, now including its debt to the state. When considering appropriate payment options, those who are directly responsible for this debt should be held personally accountable — not the innocent, law-abiding taxpayers of our city.
Dan Cannon
Seaford
