New Castle County President Paul Clark faced a storm of criticism Tuesday after an e-mail proposing changes to the county’s development code was sent by Clark to two dozen developers and land use attorneys.
The e-mail also contained the signature of Saul Ewing LLP, the Wilmington firm where Clark’s wife, Pam Scott, is a development attorney, raising questions in some minds about the origin of proposed changes.
“I’d like to know who’s been a part of these kinds of decisions and who’s been a part of these kind of plans,” Bear resident Ken Dryden told the council’s Land Use Committee.
In the e-mail, sent June 11, Clark refers to the county’s land use process as “slow, inconsistent and repressive,” asks for feedback on some specific proposals and expresses frustration that the changes have been slow to come about.
“I believe it is time to stop waiting for others to make changes to the Unified Development Code and stop complaining about its impact upon development, and begin to take the necessary steps to make these Code changes,” he wrote.
Jeff Bullock, the county’s chief administrative officer, responded sharply to the e-mail, which has become widely circulated in the last several days.
“Your e-mail…is counterproductive, largely untrue, and sends a terrible message to the hard working people in our Land Use Department. It is also confusing to the public and brings into question who you think we are all working for,” Bullock wrote on June 12. “Pandering to the development community may serve some short-term interest, but we need to be mindful of our responsibilities to the interests of the larger community we serve, none of whom received your exclusive invitation to share comments and suggestions.”
And that seemed to be the central concern of those who spoke Tuesday.
“I’m upset that I wasn’t included in the e-mail or contacted, because I want changes too,” said Phillip Doering of Newark. “I would be more than happy to sit down and craft some legislative changes to the Unified Development Code that would benefit everyone, but I didn’t get that luxury because I’m just an ordinary citizen.”
Since his campaign for council president in 2004, Clark has faced questions about whether his wife's job as a development attorney represented a conflict of interest. In 2005, he was chided by the county’s Ethics Commission for voting in favor of a rezoning for an Ogletown church that was being represented by his wife. Clark did recuse himself from the vote on the land use plan itself, however.
Clark, who is up for re-election this fall, has admitted that the inclusion of the Saul Ewing signature was simply an oversight stemming from the fact that he and Scott share a computer at home, but on Tuesday, he defended the contents of the e-mail and his ties to the development community.
“I don’t just have the luxury of representing just the homeowner,” he said. “I also have to represent the home builder and the prospective home buyer who may want to come to the county.”
He said the people he included in the e-mail were those who have approached him over the last two years about concerns with the county’s land use process. He said the ideas discussed in the e-mail – such as allowing rezonings throughout the year instead of during three designated periods and eliminating transit requirements in specific zoning classifications – are things he’s discussed publicly for years.
Clark left the meeting immediately following his remarks.
Councilman Jea Street (D-Wilmington South) said he did not accept Clark’s explanation.
“I’m astounded that speech was just made as if there’s nothing wrong and nobody is expected to stand up and do anything about it,” he said. “The appearance of impropriety is as bad as impropriety itself.”
Councilman Penrose Hollins (D-Wilmington North) said he believed the council needed to sanction Clark.
“I do not go along with things that are going on that are very clearly conflicts of interest,” he said. “And I think it’s important for this council to regain and retain the public trust.”
