It’s election time in Seaford.
Mayor David Genshaw and Councilman Matt Maccoy will face challengers Pat A. Jones and Stacie Whitt Spicer, respectively, in the April 16 election. The mayoral term is three years; the council term is two years.
Seaford residents can vote at City Hall, at 414 High St., between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m. Saturday.
The News Journal/Delaware Online sent each candidate an identical questionnaire. Their responses are listed below unedited.
Councilman Matt Maccoy did not respond to the questionnaire by deadline.
FETAL REMAINS ORDINANCE: Why Seaford won’t disclose who’s paying for its legal defense, and how that may influence politics
David Genshaw
Why are you qualified for this office?
My years as Mayor have been built on strong relationships with our Council, City Leadership, City Employees, our County, our State Representatives, our Governor, and our God which allow me to best understand my small part in all of this.
What do you think are the top three issues facing Seaford and how do you plan on tackling them?
Economic Development is the key to our future. Our plan is to continue working together to make opportunity available through making sites available with infrastructure.
Would you have voted for the fetal remains ordinance? Why or why not? If you were in office when it passed, why did you vote for it?
In our form of government, the Mayor does not vote but yes I do support. It is the absolutely the right thing to do. Our community overwhelming supports this ordinance.
How do you feel about the involvement of an anonymous donor in litigation related to the fetal remains ordinance?
So it is clear, the City of Seaford did not receive any money in regards to litigation to this ordinance. All financial support went to a local nonprofit and there have been many supporters that did not wish to see the City impacted financially by litigation. Both sides of this discussion receive donations from anonymous supporters.
SEAFORD:Attorney general finds trooper justified in March 2021 shooting death
Pat A. Jones
Why are you qualified for this office?
I am qualified for this office for several reasons. First, I have valuable experience. I was a member of Seaford City Council for twelve years and am very familiar with the structure and procedures in our city government. I was the council liaison to the public works and code enforcement department, and the parks and recreation division. I spearheaded the neighborhood watch in East Seaford which helped clean up the notorious “Crack Alley” decades ago. As a leader, I served on the Delaware Commission for Women, am Executive Director for the AFRAM festival, and was president of the Seaford Mission. Additionally, as a retired community banker, I understand how city finances work, am able to manage complex budgets, and have the people skills to ensure harmony and a smooth transition.
What do you think are the top three issues facing Seaford and how do you plan on tackling them?
1. Government transparency — all meetings (except for those legally permitted reasons in executive session) should be public, live streamed, and available for citizens to view on recorded media.
2. Crime prevention — increase the budget to fully staff law enforcement, ensuring more police involvement and community patrolling. We need visibility to proactively prevent crime.
3. Inclusive economic development — businesses are being developed and it’s past time to involve individuals in our development. We must work to give underserved citizens a “hand up.” Tackling fair housing and homelessness is a priority. Families are living crowded together because housing is so expensive in our area. Many are one paycheck short of being homeless despite having multiple earners in the home.
Would you have voted for the fetal remains ordinance? Why or why not? If you were in office when it passed, why did you vote for it?
I would have voted against the illegal ordinance that would force grieving families to bear additional costs and mental anguish unnecessarily. This issue is, in fact, already covered in state legislation. The structure of this regulation has presented no problems to our constituency, prior to this publicity stunt by the mayor. The mayor and some members of the city council persist in supporting the ordinance despite knowing that they would be sued by the Attorney General of Delaware and possibly other organizations as well.
How do you feel about the involvement of an anonymous donor in litigation related to the fetal remains ordinance?
I’m very concerned about this. The Campaign Legal Center (https://campaignlegal.org) has stated that, “the emergence of dark money a is serious threat to our democracy.” I agree with this because it raises the ethics question — who is influencing the policies and actions of our city government? We can also speculate that this may not be the first time that money has been offered for votes. If your values permit you to publicly take money to influence votes, what has happened in private? One councilman stated that he voted for the unlawful ordinance BECAUSE there was a donor who stated he/she would cover all of the city’s legal expenses. Seaford city government should not be for sale to the highest bidder. The collusion between the anonymous donor and our mayor should have been denounced as soon as it was made public.
WESTERN SUSSEX:Bridgeville natural gas project approved despite opposition from environmental groups
Stacie Whitt Spicer
Why are you qualified for this office?
I was born and raised in Seaford. I have chosen to raise my own family here, giving back to the same community that raised me. After graduating from the University of Delaware, I was fortunate to work for the State of Delaware in a law enforcement career for almost 20 years. I am now an instructor of criminal justice at Delaware Tech. I currently serve the City of Seaford as the chairperson for the Planning and Zoning committee. I’ve also served on the City’s Board of Elections. Through the variety of roles I’ve held, I have learned to listen to people. I’ve also learned that an objective perspective is critical to trust. Fairness matters.
What do you think are the top three issues facing Seaford and how do you plan on tackling them?
The top three issues facing Seaford are community safety, economic viability and trust in government. Recently, Seaford has expanded its police force. Those officers were much needed. As our city grows, the police force must grow with it. With the addition of new officers, police can more safely conduct their duties and increase visibility, so that the community feels safer to enjoy Seaford. As to economic viability, the addition of Amazon is a great addition to Seaford. However, that business alone isn’t going to save the city. We need to continue to expand economic opportunities to sustain growth. Finally, trust in government is a priority. Transparency is key in facilitating trust between Council and townspeople. As I’ve canvassed Seaford and talked to people about concerns, they have, time and again, indicated that there is a lack of transparency and therefore trust with our Council. I aim to change that by adding in a public comment section to Council meetings so that people may bring concerns before their elected officials.
Would you have voted for the fetal remains ordinance? Why or why not? If you were in office when it passed, why did you vote for it?
I would not have voted for this illegal ordinance. First, the State of Delaware already has code in place that indicates how remains are handled. For those who are concerned about law and order understand that city law cannot supersede state law. Furthermore, this ordinance also places a disproportionate financial as well as emotional burden on families.
How do you feel about the involvement of an anonymous donor in litigation related to the fetal remains ordinance?
Involvement of an anonymous donor to an elected body should alarm everyone. One of the fundamentals of our democracy is that it is a process built BY THE PEOPLE and not by some anonymous donor. By taking dark money, this showcases to the townspeople that our city can be bought by the highest bidder. From that, one could surmise that the voices of the citizens don’t matter. This also raises an ethics question: if the government entity is willing to publicly take anonymous money this time, is this a harbinger of future unethical behavior? As an elected official one is there to serve, not for profit or personal gain.
MORE:In cases of 4 remaining rape victims, defendant takes plea deal in Georgetown
