Colleagues of New Castle County Council President Paul Clark are moving to block him from introducing land use legislation in the face of ongoing controversy surrounding an e-mail Clark sent to developers last month.
Councilwoman Stephanie McClellan (D-Newark) – with the co-sponsorship of five other council members – will introduce legislation next week urging Clark not to spearhead any changes to the county’s Unified Development Code “until public confidence in the impartiality of the process” is restored.
Meanwhile Tuesday, Clark released an advisory opinion issued by the Ethics Commission he said confirms the e-mail – sent to two dozen developers and attorneys requesting feedback on specific code changes – did not violate the county’s Code of Ethics or any law.
The advisory opinion, requested by Clark himself, said an elected official was allowed to “communicate privately for review and comment with an industry group.” But the opinion was silent on other issues relating to the e-mail – specifically that the e-mail contained the tagline from Saul Ewing, the real estate law firm of Clark’s wife, Pam Scott.
Clark has said the tagline was simply an accident resulting from the two sharing a computer at home.
“People just don’t seem to believe that a husband and wife could operate in the same area without there being a conflict of interest,” Clark said. “The fact is, if there was a conflict, every land use attorney would be shouting from the rooftops over it because they’d say she has an unfair advantage.”
But McClellan, a former ethics commissioner, said she believes the relationship is an issue, at least in terms of the way the public perceives the fairness of the county’s land use approval process.
“It became very clear to me that the combination of factors was undermining the faith and confidence the public had in our process,” she said.
Council could do more
Councilman Penrose Hollins (D-Wilmington North), who has been one of the most vocal critics of Clark, said he and other council members are researching rules in other jurisdictions that deal with conflict-of-interest issues.
“We’re asking him to refrain from [introducing legislation] until such time as we as a body have time to look…other assurances we can put in our code to give even greater confidence to the public,” he said. “We need to do some homework ourselves.”
Clark, who has long defended his marriage to Scott and has often recused himself from votes on projects she represents, said he believes the furor caused by the e-mail is to blame on Chief Administrative Officer Jeffrey Bullock’s reply, which accused Clark of “pandering to the development community.”
“It would have never been an issue if Jeff Bullock hadn’t editorialized in his reply about what I was saying,” Clark said.
Both Bullock and County Executive Chris Coons, who preceded Clark as council president, declined to comment.
Clark also said he believed the way sponsors were sought for the bill represented a violation of the county’s open meeting laws and said it could interfere with any other investigations by the Ethics Department.
Hollins called those claims “ridiculous” and said it was a perfectly normal course of council business to seek co-sponsors for legislation outside of formal, public meetings. McClellan said she merely advised council members that she was bringing forward the resolution, and that some said they wished to support it and others did not.
Councilman Jea Street (D-Wilmington South) said that while the Ethics Commission had its role, council could not stand silent on the issue.
“I think it’s our responsibility to address it,” Street said. “As a body, I think it’s our charge.”
Councilmen John Cartier (D-Penny Hill) and Dave Tackett (D-Christiana) are the other two co-sponsors.
Marion Stewart, a longtime council observer and civic activist, applauded the resolution.
“In principal, I think it’s wonderful,” she said. “I think Paul Clark has been an embarrassment to county council.”
But Councilman Timothy Sheldon (D-Pike Creek) said that while Clark's e-mail represented poor judgment, he disagreed with the resolution, calling it "ill-timed" and "disingenuous."
"County Council and New Castle County have a process," he wrote in an e-mail. "To circumvent the process to politically damage the Council President is wrong. Such actions actually further erode public confidence in their elected officials. We should allow the process to be fully vetted in the public and take responsible actions after the inquiry and formal proceedings, not before."
Friction on council
Clark blasted the effort as political maneuvering, blaming Hollins for orchestrating the resolution.
“There’s been an historic and recurring conflict over the president’s office,” Clark said. "It all stems from the inability of Councilman Hollins to get over the fact that he lost the primary to me in 2004 and it’s a shame.”
Hollins dismissed that accusation.
“It’s unfortunate that anytime I have a disagreement he falls back on the 2004 election,” he said. “Other people that have an issue with all of this did not even run in 2004.”
Hollins, a council member since 1990, said tensions on council were at an all-time high, with some council members remaining loyal to Clark and believing he had done nothing wrong.
“Since I’ve been here, it’s never been this bad,” he said.
Councilman George Smiley (
"I have no tension with anybody," he said. "I don't particularly see anything different now than I've encountered in the other years I've been here."
Smiley declined to comment on the resolution, which he did not sign onto. He has agreed to take over sponsorship of a development code change recently introduced by
Clark, who just last week got a key proposal to change transit regulations for some kinds of development approved by council, said he would continue to be involved in crafting legislation unless the council voted to change their rules to bar him from doing so. McClellan’s resolution is non-binding and merely suggests Clark recuse himself.
