Letter to the Editor: What can new public-comment law mean for Seaford?

Recently, the Delaware General Assembly unanimously passed a soon-to-be law which mandates “that meetings of public bodies … must provide an opportunity for public comment.” Delaware public bodies include city councils/commissions, boards, committees, etc., of all municipalities.

This action took place virtually concurrently with a Chancery Court ruling that Seaford’s fetal-remains ordinance was illegal.

For all other municipalities, the public-comment legislation was no big deal. However, Seaford has never allowed public comment other than a brief six-month trial period six-plus years ago. No public comment of any kind regarding the illegal fetal-remains ordinance was allowed by Seaford’s mayor and City Council.

Sound un-American? Yes, it is, and it is the antithesis of the spirit of governance of, by and for the people.

Other municipalities in Delaware likely consider citizen input as a vital check on the actions/activities of elected and appointed officials supposed to be responsive and responsible to citizens.

However, despite repeated entreaties over many years, the city of Seaford had, to the best of my knowledge, may have been the only municipality in the state of Delaware not allowing public comment at meetings under its umbrella, until forced to do so by Delaware’s General Assembly.

Seaford’s extremely dubious rejection of public comment as checks on very dubious decision-making has not worked out well for Seaford.

For example, over the last six to seven years, the city of Seaford has been found guilty of violations of the Freedom of Information Act laws, violations of several election laws, an attempt to establish an illegal right-to-work law and, most recently, an attempt to establish an illegal fetal-remains law.

There were no opportunities for citizens to address Seaford’s mayor and City Council in public about these snafus (and others) that resulted in considerable cost to Seaford’s reputation, not to mention its bank accounts.

To date, the current mayor and a majority of the City Council, along with the current unelected city manager, continue, in the main, to disregard toward citizens’ contrarian views.

The persistence of virtually unchecked mayor and City Council power can be directly tied to decisive influence over local elections. Such influence has depended on what I see as severe limitation of the number of votes/voters/voting in local elections for decades.

Voter registration did jump from less than 1,500 in 2020 to almost 5,000 in 2022, but only about 600 voters turned out in both these elections. The voting numbers in the 2022 election were disappointing with a raft of newly eligible voters but not especially surprising, as the election was held on Easter holiday weekend.

Therefore, a key to involving more of the nearly 5,000 eligible voters in local elections is moving the date of local elections to that of the November state/federal elections. Such a move would likely double or triple the actual number of citizens voting in local elections, breaking the long pattern of low voter turnout.

Finally, the success of public comment in Seaford will strongly depend on elected officials respecting the new law by showing good-faith acceptance and utilization of this form of public input.

I strongly encourage all citizens of Seaford to bring their opinions and concerns into the forum of public comment and press their elected mayor and City Council to move Seaford elections to the November date of federal and state elections.

Dan Cannon

Seaford