Chelle Paul of Dover is the founder of Divided We Fall of Delaware.
It’s important for us, as Dover constituents, to understand the actual meaning of the allegations made by the Fraternal Order of Police.
The FOP has raised allegations of improper retaliation involving Councilmembers Roy Sudler and Brian Lewis, and the police chief’s use of a city vehicle was part of the broader complaint. That vehicle issue, however, was not the major part of the complaint. These issues should not be viewed in isolation. The bigger picture is accountability, integrity and the use of authority.
These specific officers have alleged that they were asked by their superiors to do something they believed was unethical and that they refused. If their account is accurate, that is exactly what we should expect from officers who understand their oath and their responsibility.
But the chief was also in a position of leadership. If he was given an improper request by his superior, he had the same obligation to say no and report it through the appropriate channels. Instead, the allegations raise the concern that he aided his superior in the alleged impropriety, rather than refusing the request and reporting it.
So, what exactly were the findings? And, when the mayor says he is taking responsibility, what exactly is he taking responsibility for?
There is now a resolution and an investigation surrounding these allegations. That does not automatically tell the public what was substantiated, what was not or who was responsible. Constituents should not be left wondering what the actual findings were.
Those findings and the records that can legally be made public should be disclosed. Before any documents or evidence related to these allegations are altered, destroyed, removed or otherwise compromised, the city should ensure that all relevant records and evidence are preserved.
The officers who allegedly refused demonstrated the integrity expected of them. The bigger concern is what happens to officers who want to get into the chief’s good graces, prove their loyalty or believe that refusing leaders’ requests could result in retaliation.
If leaders are willing to use police authority to retaliate against public officials because they challenge or create problems for those leaders, constituents have to ask what happens when the person being challenged is an ordinary resident.
As an advocate, I have personally experienced what I believe were intimidating tactics and threats. So, who is responsible for stopping this? Do we continue to allow this type of behavior?
These types of allegations and behaviors affect public trust. City leaders have a responsibility to address matters of this nature when they become aware of them. Strong leaders would not allow serious allegations involving the use of police authority, retaliation or the integrity of the department to remain unaddressed for an extended period of time.
We cannot make Dover better again until we address the elephant in the room. We have to get back to the basics and start addressing the policies and systemic issues that are contributing to these problems. That means governing with honor, integrity, transparency and accountability.
The chief has received a vote of no confidence from his department and from the constituents, and it is time for him to separate from our city, willingly or by termination.
This is bigger than one vehicle, one investigation, one chief, one mayor or two council members. This is about restoring public trust and making sure our policies, leaders and institutions are working for the people they are supposed to serve.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
