Orangeo: Did Dover City Council cover up ethics complaint?


Regarding the article, “Previous Dover City Council president could be censured for ethics complaint,” by Benjamin Rothstein: It looks to me like there is more than meets the eye with this situation. From what I read, it appears as a cover-up. It is not clear in the article why the resolution of the censure by the Ethics Commission was not disclosed to the public in a timely fashion, nor why it was delayed being placed on a City Council agenda for disposition. Further, this incident happened several months ago, and we are now in 2024. I’m curious why there was a delay. Delaying this matter makes me think that there is something more serious with Councilman William Hare’s behavior and that all the facts are not being shared in this news article with the public. That, in and of itself, is very bad.

According to the article, “The resolution reads that the city Ethics Commission, on an undisclosed date, unanimously approved the censure after a hearing that featured testimony from both Councilman Hare and the employee. The group believes the incident to be a violation of ethical standards in Dover’s code.”

So, how can the new Council President David Anderson take the matter so lightly, by saying in the article that Councilman Hare’s actions do not raise to the level of a censure, when he was, in fact, found guilty of all charges by the full body of the city Ethics Commission (unanimous vote)? From what I read about resolutions, they are to be public and really about awareness, transparency and accountability.

These days it appears there is no transparency within the city of Dover government!

Louis Orangeo


Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.

Members and subscribers make this story possible.
You can help support non-partisan, community journalism.