Seaford’s fetal-remains legislation, called Ordinance 8.9, has passed from cradle to grave. However, the consequences of its passage remain undisclosed.
One of the primary taxpayer consequences centers around the undisclosed financial costs associated with the ordinance.
As a pointed example, the Court of Chancery determined that “the State prevailed and is therefore entitled to an award of costs” from Seaford. However, this “award of costs” remains undisclosed as one of many pieces of the entire cost of promulgating the aborted ordinance. These costs have been incurred primarily, but not exclusively, by Seaford solicitor Dan Griffith and/or his associates.
It appears to me that all this began with a Mayor David Genshaw-initiated-and Griffith-carried-out search for a so-called “important” issue for Seaford’s mayor and City Council to address. This cost us money.
Even though the bulk of the initial Sept. 28, 2021, ordinance was “lifted” from Indiana, there was research by Griffith to vet the text, as well as to adapt it (poorly, as it turned out) to the state of Delaware’s unique system of laws. This cost us money.
Of course, the Sept. 28, 2021, initial presentation of the ordinance required Griffith’s presence and testimony. Later, Griffith appeared for its Oct. 12, 2021, second reading, as well as its final passage on Dec. 14, 2021. This cost us money.
Between Griffith’s in-person appearances, there was legal work to examine, evaluate and/or respond to from the Department of Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union Delaware and others. In addition, Griffith was preparing several amended versions of the original ordinance before the ordinance’s Dec. 14, 2021, final passage. This cost us money.
After the Jan. 11, 2022, filing in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the city by the state of Delaware, Griffith had to prepare for an expedited court hearing on May 12, 2022. Of course, on May 12, Griffith represented the city in the Court of Chancery hearing. This cost us money.
Upon learning of Seaford’s ignominious defeat in the June 29, 2022, ruling by Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster, Griffith was quick to prepare what I consider the city’s mostly false and/or misleading mea culpa, although this statement did accept the court’s “opinion,” including its “award of costs.” All of this and more cost us money.
As a citizen and taxpayer, I consider these undisclosed costs and the specific source(s) of payment(s) for these costs to be a matter of public record.
Therefore, I ask the mayor and City Council for a commitment to release this public information to the public for its inspection, consideration and evaluation as soon as possible.
Dan Cannon
Seaford
