Deal making in private by city officials is always very troubling. Such behaviors are not in the spirit of open government and not in the best interests of citizens.
Recently in Seaford a secret deal smacked of a quid pro quo arrangement with unknown entities offering financial backing for/in support of a political goal. Has Mayor David Genshaw readily accepted a private deal and attempted to use the deal to influence members of the Seaford City Council to vote in favor of the fetal remains Ordinance 8.9?
Please consider:
At the Dec. 14, 2021, meeting of the mayor and City Council there was discussion regarding the City of Seaford’s proposed ordinance. During that discussion Mayor David Genshaw indicated that he knew of concerns, including from at least one city councilman, relating to possible negative financial costs to taxpayers due to potential litigation against the city.
The mayor and council were in receipt of a letter received Dec. 14 from Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings indicating that the Department of Justice was likely to initiate legal proceedings against the City of Seaford upon passage of the ordinance for violation of Delaware laws. In addition, an Oct. 12 Delaware ACLU letter told the mayor and council that they “would be forced to bring litigation” against the city upon passage of the ordinance for violation of Delaware laws.
Beginning around time mark12:30 on the recorded YouTube video of the Dec. 14 meeting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhIlhFmEZ5g), Mayor Genshaw states, “A person has stepped up and said they would financially support us on that so that there would be no cost to taxpayers if this was to create some form of litigation after the fact,” in reference to supporting the city if council passed the ordinance and litigation ensued. Was this, in effect, an announcement of a deal struck between an anonymous benefactor and the mayor and/or city officials?
Mayor Genshaw’s announcement of the deal made it a part of the public record, clearly in response to promises of litigation over an enacted ordinance. Mayor Genshaw attempted to use the announcement of the deal to influence members of the City Council to vote in favor of the ordinance prior to the vote on the proposed Ordinance. The ordinance was then passed by a 3-2 vote of the City Council of Seaford, with Councilmen Holland, Henderson and MacCoy voting in favor.
The facts based on that Dec. 14 announcement show: 1) A financial support deal was introduced in the public council meeting by Mayor Genshaw; and 2) Mayor Genshaw used the deal as argument to influence members of the City Council during the official proceedings/deliberations. With these facts in mind, it is my belief that communications between Mayor Genshaw and the anonymous “person” are public information and subject to the FOIA laws of Delaware.
Accordingly, I have filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request with the City of Seaford to try and uncover the identity of the person as well as details and/or terms of the deal such as its size, conditions and/or contingencies, etc.
Provision of such information including source(s) and details of funding in support the City’s litigation obligations around the enacted ordinance will help formulate answers to important lingering questions.
In this deal, is Mayor Genshaw’s attempt to influence the Seaford City Council to vote in favor of the ordinance in exchange for payment(s) to mitigate costs of litigation a proper exercise of his power(s)?
Did the votes by Holland, Henderson and MacCoy in favor of the ordinance after announcement of the deal signal their approval of a likely quid pro quo deal as presented by Mayor Genshaw?
Is this deal legal under the laws of the State of Delaware?
Dan Cannon
Seaford
