Why Should Delaware Care?
Wilmington City Council has faced past criticism over transparency, and a recent private meeting among a select group of members has reignited those concerns. While some say the conversation was necessary to explore how the council can work more effectively, others argue proposals discussed will affect the public and the entire body should not have been discussed. The gathering has also prompted questions about whether it violated Delaware’s open meeting laws.
Five Wilmington City Council members met privately with a former mayor to draft new policies that would significantly reshape the body’s committee structure and introduce new limits on protests in council meetings following a tense and outburst-laden meeting earlier this month.
News of the meeting spread Monday after Wilmington Councilmember Coby Owens announced it may be his last meeting as a member of the Community Development and Urban Planning committee.
“The [committee] chair and some of the other senior council members would like to remove me from this committee,” he said. “I’ve asked them not to, but it probably will happen.”
Owens’ public comments came only a few days after he and others learned that a private “off-site” meeting had been held by council members Chris Johnson, Yolanda McCoy, Maria Cabrera, Michelle Harlee, and Zanthia Oliver with former Mayor James Baker.
The city council hired Baker three years ago to consult city officials on policy and legislation.
Councilman Chris Johnson told Spotlight Delaware that some of the intent of the meeting was to discuss ideas and ask Baker for guidance on how they can “operate more effectively.”
But two days after the meeting, Johnson sent an email to the group and the city’s legal team, asking them to draft policy and requesting that those measures skip the usual committee process and go straight on the Council’s final meeting agenda before their six-week summer break.
The proposed ordinances included:
- Removing council members Owens and Alexander Hackett from the Community Development and Urban Planning Committee.
- Removing Councilwoman Shané Darby from the Finance Committee.
- Dissolving the Intergovernmental Committee.
- Removing Councilwoman Harlee from the Education, Youth & Family Services Committee.
- Requiring that council members be physically present and in their seats for their vote to be counted.
- Prohibiting the public from engaging in protest, signage, and “similar devices” at the city building, to promote safety for city officials.
- Adding a sergeant-at-arms to maintain order during council meetings and ensure the safety of council members.
“Some of those ideas came from the meeting, and some just came from conversations outside of the meeting,” Johnson said.
Since the release of the email, Owens and Darby have openly criticized their colleagues for meeting in secret to create legislation that would affect the entire council, calling it a potential violation of the state’s Open Meetings Act.
“If it wasn’t for this email coming out, we would have never known,” Owens told Spotlight Delaware.
It is unclear who initiated the meeting, as Johnson stated that he was sent an invitation, but he did not clarify who sent it to him.
Cabrera said she was invited to the meeting to discuss public safety reform amid the protest and outcry that occurred during council’s recent vote against rent stabilization, which led members to feel unsafe and resulted in some having to be escorted to their cars by law enforcement.
Cabrera also said that the email sent by Johnson should not have been sent at all.
“That email was sent prematurely, without any of the members that were in that meeting reviewing it, and without any of the other council members having a chance to hear about it or to review any of it,” she said.
Harlee, who said she was briefly called into the meeting by Oliver via phone, echoed Cabrera’s feelings—stating that Johnson should issue an apology, as she and other members were not informed that the meeting would involve drafting legislation or that an email would be sent afterward.
McCoy acknowledged that she was involved but said that she was invited to join the conversation via phone call and was only present for a short period to add her opinions on public safety.
Oliver, who was also present, had little to say on the matter.
“It’s an unfortunate situation. It wasn’t supposed to make [city council] look wrong,” she said, noting that she was more focused on providing aid to residents during the heatwave. “I have to focus on my constituents. I’m not going back and forth with this.”
Committees could be slimmed
Johnson said that the conversation around how to make committees smaller and more efficient had been ongoing for months. The city council currently has eight committees, ranging in size from four to seven members.
When he asked why specific members were chosen to be removed, he referred those questions to the chairs of each committee.
Councilwoman Cabrera, who is chair of the Community Development and Urban Planning committees, said that she did not make the recommendation to remove Owens and Hackett from the committee, but said that someone made the recommendation during the meeting.
She highlighted that the main focus of the meeting was the topic of safety measures, but the conversation around condensing committees came up after it was noted that her committee had 14 agenda items for an upcoming meeting.
Owens refuted the argument that his committee was too large, noting that the council voted to approve adding a member to that committee before the last legislative session, and that he and Hackett were only replacing previous members who came off.
Darby said she has not discussed the matter with Harlee.
“Since she made the request, I’m expecting her as our senior leadership and chair to reach out to me to let me know what her issue is,” she said.
But Harlee told Spotlight Delaware that she did not make the recommendation to remove Darby from her committee, but did confirm that the suggestion was made during the meeting.
“I didn’t suggest or recommend or agree to anyone being removed,” Harlee said.
Under the new proposals, Harlee would also be removed from the Education, Youth & Family Services Committee, which would leave her with only one committee position.
Harlee said she did not suggest stepping down from the committee but would have been fine with it, noting that as chair of the Finance Committee, she is already involved in several other boards as a voting member. Those include the city’s Pension Board, Administrative Board, and Bond Committee.
Council seeks new safety protocols
In the email sent by Johnson, he also highlighted the need for increased safety measures, proposing a prohibition on protests and signage while in the city building, and requesting that the council have a sergeant-at-arms – or a law enforcement officer who can keep the peace during legislative debates.
He said that council members feel that recent safety issues that came up as a result of the protests that occurred on June 5, following the council’s vote on rent stabilization and “continued violence against public officials, such as the Minnesota tragedies,” warranted the need for such protocols.
Over the years, controversial pieces of legislation have led to council members and the families of members receiving threats, Johnson said.
Although he said the council will honor individuals’ First Amendment rights, he plans to proceed with the measure.
“I think it is a very real presence – we have to take that seriously – and that’s one piece I’m not backing down off of,” Johnson said.
McCoy and Cabrera noted that they are less concerned with people holding signs and more concerned with the disruption that can occur within chambers when the public becomes rowdy during public comment or after a vote.
Darby said Johnson’s email was “disingenuous and unfair” by comparing nonviolent protestors to the recent shooting in Minnesota.
But she said she agrees that broader conversations around how to keep the council safe and how to keep order during meetings should be had.
Open meeting law violation?
Some, like Darby and other residents, have also challenged the legality of the private meeting, saying that it may have violated open meeting laws.
Owens, who recently passed a resolution asking state lawmakers to allow city council members to caucus or privately meet to discuss public matters, said his colleagues’ recent actions are not the same, but instead a “completely behind-the-scenes meeting.”
According to Delaware laws, when a public body meets with the minimum number of voting members to discuss public business – known as a quorum – a notice must be made to the public one week in advance, the meeting must be open for public comment, and a record of the meeting must be documented.
City Council’s minimum number of voting members is seven, but for members who are on the same committee, it’s three.
We’re definitely moving forward, we just need everyone to be at the table at the same time.
councilman chris johnson
Only five members were present, but council members McCoy, Oliver, and Johnson, who sit on the Public Safety Committee, and council members Harlee, McCoy, and Oliver, who all serve on the Education, Youth, and Families Committee, attended that private meeting.
Under the code that governs the council, a private meeting with a quorum of members could only be held if the discussion involves private or internal matters. In that case, the council president or chair of that committee would have to make the request, which would then have to be publicly voted on by a majority of members.
Since a quorum was met, the public was not informed and public business was discussed, it’s possible that the meeting violated Delaware’s open meeting laws.
One city resident, Kristina Kelly, said she filed a complaint with Delaware’s Department of Justice two days ago, calling for council to be held accountable.
“I feel very strongly that as elected officials, you are supposed to be setting an example. You are supposed to be a role model for our younger people that are coming up,” she told Spotlight Delaware.
Kelly said that the current matter is a continuation of violations that the city council has committed in the past.
In 2023, the Department of Justice determined that the council violated open meeting requirements after members cast a secret vote to fill vacant council seats. A few years earlier, in 2019, the department found council in violation again when then-Council President Hanifa Shabazz barred a resident from speaking during public comment.
“It’s mind-blowing that these are people that are supposed to be leaders in the community and around every corner, they are taking shortcuts, they are breaking the rules,” Kelly said.
But since council members and residents found out about the private meeting, Johnson has spoken to his colleagues about the matter.
After receiving feedback that the proposals were rushed and needed more full discussion, Johnson has decided to postpone the proposed legislation until after the Council’s break, which ends in August.
However, Johnson assures that the measures will still be on the table when the council resumes.
“We’re definitely moving forward, we just need everyone to be at the table at the same time,” he said.
Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to include new responses from Councilwoman Michelle Harlee.
