Editor’s note: This letter was also sent to Seaford’s mayor and City Council.
Chief Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Alexander Mackler of the Delaware Department of Justice has asked just one question of the city of Seaford: What “legal authority” does the city claim to have to enact its proposed ordinance regarding fetal remains after some abortions?
DAG Mackler’s request implied that a lack of “legal authority” from the state of Delaware could make Seaford’s passage of this ordinance an illegal act under the laws of the state.
In addition, the American Civil Liberties of Delaware has handed our city a strongly worded negative legal assessment of the proposed ordinance and stated that the organization is prepared to sue the city on multiple legal grounds, including (surprise, surprise) lack of legal authority to enact this ordinance.
In a Nov. 4 letter, City Solicitor Dan Griffith went to great lengths (at further taxpayer expense) to make it clear that he took these ACLU legal threats seriously enough to deny my Freedom of Information Act request for his response to DAG Mackler.
And consider the history: The city of Seaford is very familiar with the legal-authority issue, as the same question was also raised in 2017 before Seaford’s City Council passed its dubious right-to-work (RTW) ordinance, then spearheaded by Mayor David Genshaw.
This time around, the city and Solicitor Griffith have not even bothered to offer any legal basis for the power to enact this ordinance. Given the implicit warning from the DAG, the direct warning from ACLU and previous questions raised before the RTW fiasco, the city should have determined what, if any, legal authority it had before proceeding to present the ordinance in a public meeting of mayor and City Council. But Mayor Genshaw, who sets the agenda, forged ahead.
Mayor Genshaw did not allow public comment and/or a public hearing so that informed citizens could have alerted members of City Council and the public to serious questions around legal authority and other important issues.
At this point, the ordinance has been “tabled” (temporarily set aside) by a 5-0 vote of Seaford City Council. But the proposed ordinance may or may not be a dead issue. What should our city do?
Mayor Genshaw’s trial balloon, aided and abetted by nonelected actors, has put the city in a serious legal and potential financial bind with questions from the Delaware Department of Justice and a serious threat of punitive legal action by the Delaware ACLU.
In the past, City Council might well have ignored this sort of legal limbo dilemma — and just hope it will go away.
However, today’s City Council is a much different group than the one back in 2017, which rather blindly embraced RTW. The current City Council has demonstrated the necessary courage to do the right thing.
Therefore, to avoid any further legal and looming financial consequences, the city of Seaford should, by majority vote of City Council, publicly renounce any further consideration of this ordinance as soon as possible and eliminate the current legal limbo dilemma.
Dan Cannon
Seaford
