William G. Faust Jr. is a resident of Dover.
On Feb. 26, Dover City Council voted unanimously to disapprove an application for funding for a workforce development program from People’s Church of Dover on South Bradford Street. The funding that the church applied for was $47,363 out of the city’s Economic Development Fund, which consists of taxpayer dollars, from my understanding. I strongly favor that council members vote not to approve this money at this time.
Council was on target when it did not support the church’s application, especially with the questions about our upcoming budget and the possibility of shortfalls and a deficit looming.
Dover council needs to ensure that allocated funds are used wisely and ethically.
In the past, there have been some nonprofits that were caught misappropriating funds, then investigated and charged criminally for their individual infractions.
During this meeting, Council President Fred Neil stated that he had 17 individual complaints/concerns about People’s Church submitted in writing. President Neil also stated that there is an official investigation into the church’s kitchen by the state Division of Public Health.
In my opinion, no city or state funds should be given to the People’s Community Center, until all the questionable issues have been investigated and resolved.
This black cloud that is hovering must be cleared up before any grants are issued.
There were other red flags at the meeting, as follows.
Councilman Dave Anderson is the chair of the committee that oversaw the vote for approving city funds for the church. Anderson also served on the Board of Trustees for People’s Church up until two days before the Committee of the Whole meeting.
Councilman Gerald L. Rocha Sr., who also served as a church trustee, recused himself because he is affiliated with the church.
I give Councilman Rocha much respect because he was so transparent and professional by his actions. He showed integrity, professionalism and transparency by recusing himself. He even left council chambers until the matter was complete.
However, Councilman Anderson was not so transparent and forthcoming. He was going to continue chairing the committee and vote on the matter, until I brought up that there was a conflict because he is affiliated with the church and was on its board.
Councilman Anderson attempted to sidestep my inquiry that not recusing himself was unethical.
He stated that he was no longer on the church’s board. I stated my belief that, if he hadn’t been off the board for a year or more, he should not vote or chair the committee.
When pushed, he admitted that he just recently resigned. After much discussion and questioning, Councilman Anderson reluctantly turned over his position to Council President Neil, and he abstained on the final vote.
I encourage the citizens of Dover to review the video of this portion of the meeting because I am not giving it justice.
This also brings another concern regarding the application of the church. With Councilman Anderson’s affiliation with the facility and his lack of transparency, I am concerned about how he is carrying out his duties as a council member.
Also, another citizen in attendance, who is an attorney and a Superior Court commissioner, stated that she heard that Councilman Anderson resigned from the church’s board because he would be able to do more for People’s as mayor, if he earns that position. This information was not verified or confirmed.
Those who say I am not a supporter of Councilman Anderson should do their individual homework. Go to the city’s webpage and see for yourself how Councilman Anderson conducted himself at the meeting of the Committee of the Whole. I believe many of his constituents would not particularly like how he acted. The proof is out there; you just need to take the time out of your busy schedules to view and hear the evidence.
I submit this as a concerned citizen.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
