OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Milford, Delaware/Council (4th Monday, workshops) & Committees
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Milford City Council Workshop: Ethics Training and Charter Review (August 26, 2026)

Council (4th Monday, workshops) & Committees — Wednesday, August 26, 2026
BodyMilford, Delaware
SessionCouncil (4th Monday, workshops) & Committees
DateWednesday, August 26, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:24:30

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

0:00

And it is now 603, but before each um meeting of council, um

Unassigned speaker

0:06

the

Speaker 1

0:07

city of Milford does have a 15-minute public comment period.

0:11

And I will ask the solicitor to um go over to ground rules for the public comment period.

Speaker 2

0:16

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

0:17

Uh good evening.

0:18

This is the public comment period for the um city council workshop this evening.

0:22

City has set aside 15 minutes for public comment.

0:25

We allow three minutes per person.

0:27

Uh the chairman feels it's appropriate.

0:29

He can extend that time.

Unassigned speaker

0:31

Anyone who wish to speak should have signed up on the comment pad.

Speaker 2

0:34

We will also check online.

0:36

If your name is called, please come up to the podium or if you're speaking online, give your name and address and a topic for which you want to speak.

0:44

Um, is there a sign-up sheet this evening?

0:47

Did anyone sign

Unassigned speaker

0:48

up?

Speaker 2

0:48

I don't see anyone here coming forward.

0:51

Is there anyone online uh with their hand raised to make a public comment?

Speaker 3

0:57

Uh we do have one.

Speaker 4

1:02

Julie, go ahead.

Unassigned speaker

1:06

Uh

Speaker 4

1:06

Julie Morris, 2114.

1:10

Cedar Beach Road.

1:13

Uh glad culotta, you got there just in time.

1:17

So um, since tonight's workshop is about ethics, um thought this would be a good time to remind some people that council members are independently elected, they should be able to vote their judgment without being publicly pressured or chastised for disagreeing with the mayor.

1:40

Uh the same should be true for the planning commission and the board of adjustment.

1:45

Those members should never have to wonder whether questioning staff, questioning an applicant or disagreeing with the mayor could affect whether they were reappointed.

1:55

I'd also like tonight's discussion to clearly explain why the mayor's authority ends and the city manager's authority begins, particularly when it comes to directing staff and influencing administrative decisions.

2:12

And I'm glad to see in the packet discussion on the spoky smoky hollow decision included.

2:24

And I would definitely encourage you to play cl pay close attention to that.

2:28

We repeatedly hear during Milford Land Use hearings that if an application meets technical requirements, the planning commission essentially has to approve it.

2:38

But the Supreme Court made it very clear that that's not the case.

2:44

If legitimate site-specific questions remain about flooding, drainage, wetlands, infrastructure, traffic, utilities, school capacity, public safety, agency recommendations.

2:58

The commission can investigate those concerns, require an adequate factual record, and impose reasonable conditions when supported by the evidence.

3:16

So you cannot know that an application complies until you have enough information to make

Unassigned speaker

3:23

that

Speaker 4

3:24

determination.

3:25

Kulata is gonna sit here and you know, because he makes the agenda, say that this is all about public pressure.

3:33

Um, no, it's clear when something clearly has further information, further guest investigation that that can come back, and those agencies have to answer for the residents also deserve clear rules on disclosure and recusal when officials have family financial business employment or other private connections to matters before the city.

4:01

So council works for Milford, the planning commission works for Milford, the Board of Adjustment works for Milford, and unfortunately, so does the mayor.

4:10

Thanks.

Speaker 2

4:14

Is there anyone else online?

Speaker 5

4:18

Uh no.

Speaker 2

4:21

If there's no one online, uh mayor, you can close the public comment portion.

Speaker 6

4:26

Public comments closed.

4:27

We'll go ahead and go on to the uh council agenda for the workshop.

4:34

Uh first uh item on is uh public officials ethics training.

Speaker 3

4:43

So hello everyone.

4:44

My name is Max Walton.

4:45

I'm a partner with Conley Gallagher, which is a law firm and Wilmington in Newark, and I just so happen to be the guy in Newark.

4:52

Um I I know some of you I've been here several years uh doing training on various things.

Unassigned speaker

5:00

And I do that uh across the state uh for a lot of municipalities.

Speaker 3

5:04

I'm also a senior fellow with the University of Delaware, it's institute of public administration.

5:09

So for the last several years, I've come down and they asked me to speak about FOIA, but this year um it's gonna be a little bit different because we've we've done that enough.

5:19

We've had that training enough.

5:21

And so we were trying to do something that's a little bit different.

5:24

So, what we're gonna talk about uh today in the training.

5:28

And if we go to the first couple of slides, there you go.

5:31

We're gonna talk about ethics.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Public Engagement███████████████████████████27%
Pending Litigation████████████████████████24%
Engineering And Infrastructure███████████11%
Procedural█████████9%
Legal Precedent███████7%
Personnel Matters█████5%
Social Media Policy████4%
Home Rule████4%
Land Use Regulation███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Milford City Council Workshop – Ethics Training and Charter Review

The Milford City Council held a workshop on August 26, 2026. The agenda included a public comment period, a state-mandated ethics training session led by attorney Max Walton, and a discussion on recently approved updates to the City Charter.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Julie Morris (2114 Cedar Beach Road) spoke about ethics and governance. She argued that council members should be able to vote independently without pressure from the mayor, and that planning commission and Board of Adjustment members should not have to fear that questioning staff or disagreeing with the mayor could affect their reappointments. She requested a clear explanation of the boundary between the mayor's authority and the city manager's authority. Regarding land use, she countered the idea that an application must be approved simply because it meets technical requirements, citing Supreme Court precedent that allows commissions to investigate site-specific concerns (flooding, drainage, traffic, etc.) and impose reasonable conditions when supported by the evidence. She concluded that the council, planning commission, Board of Adjustment, and mayor all "work for Milford".

Discussion Items

  • Public Officials Ethics Training

    • Max Walton (Partner, Conley Gallagher and Senior Fellow, University of Delaware Institute of Public Administration) presented the training. He covered the state Public Integrity Commission (PIC) standard, emphasizing the "appearance of impropriety" as the key metric for recusal and noting the city relies on the state for ethics review.
    • City Manager Government and Recusal: Walton advised council members to "stay in your lane," stating the council sets policy while the city manager implements it. He warned against public prejudgment of quasi-judicial matters (e.g., conditional use applications), which could force disqualification, citing cases such as Dale vs. Town of Ellesmere, where one member's failure to recuse tainted an entire body's decision.
    • Smoky Hollow Decision / Land Use: Walton explicitly disagreed with the public commenter's interpretation of the Smoky Hollow decision. He stated it is "well settled" in Delaware that if a subdivision meets all requirements of the code, it must be approved, as affirmed by the Ashburn decision. He noted conditions can be imposed but must be justified under the constitutional standards of nexus and rough proportionality.
    • Takings and Exactions: Walton warned about Koontz, Nolan, Dolan, and Sheetz, explaining that demanding unconstitutional conditions or fees grossly disproportionate to service costs in development approvals can constitute a taking, shifting the burden of proof to the municipality. He advised that percentage-based fees are vulnerable to challenge if they function as revenue raising measures rather than being tied to the actual cost of services.
    • Upcoming Legislation: Walton highlighted Senate Bill 23 and House Bill 450, predicting they would significantly limit local land use control, including effectively eliminating requirements for traffic impact studies with a 500-trip threshold.
  • Charter Review Discussion

    • Councilmember Jason reviewed the City Charter changes approved in July 2025 and sponsored by Senator Wilson and Representative Shoop. He noted the official online City Charter had not yet been updated to reflect these changes and requested the Deputy City Clerk ensure it is updated so the public and council operate under the current governing law.
    • In response to a question from Councilmember Maribella, staff confirmed that Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment members receive annual legal ethics training through the University of Delaware Institute of Public Administration.

Key Outcomes

  • The council received the ethics training presentation from Max Walton.
  • Council discussed the July 2025 Charter amendments. The Deputy City Clerk was directed to update the online City Charter to reflect the newly approved changes.
  • Council was informed that Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment members already receive annual legal and ethics training.

Meeting Transcript

And it is now 603, but before each um meeting of council, um the city of Milford does have a 15-minute public comment period. And I will ask the solicitor to um go over to ground rules for the public comment period. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Uh good evening. This is the public comment period for the um city council workshop this evening. City has set aside 15 minutes for public comment. We allow three minutes per person. Uh the chairman feels it's appropriate. He can extend that time. Anyone who wish to speak should have signed up on the comment pad. We will also check online. If your name is called, please come up to the podium or if you're speaking online, give your name and address and a topic for which you want to speak. Um, is there a sign-up sheet this evening? Did anyone sign up? I don't see anyone here coming forward. Is there anyone online uh with their hand raised to make a public comment? Uh we do have one. Julie, go ahead. Uh Julie Morris, 2114. Cedar Beach Road. Uh glad culotta, you got there just in time. So um, since tonight's workshop is about ethics, um thought this would be a good time to remind some people that council members are independently elected, they should be able to vote their judgment without being publicly pressured or chastised for disagreeing with the mayor. Uh the same should be true for the planning commission and the board of adjustment. Those members should never have to wonder whether questioning staff, questioning an applicant or disagreeing with the mayor could affect whether they were reappointed. I'd also like tonight's discussion to clearly explain why the mayor's authority ends and the city manager's authority begins, particularly when it comes to directing staff and influencing administrative decisions. And I'm glad to see in the packet discussion on the spoky smoky hollow decision included. And I would definitely encourage you to play cl pay close attention to that. We repeatedly hear during Milford Land Use hearings that if an application meets technical requirements, the planning commission essentially has to approve it. But the Supreme Court made it very clear that that's not the case. If legitimate site-specific questions remain about flooding, drainage, wetlands, infrastructure, traffic, utilities, school capacity, public safety, agency recommendations. The commission can investigate those concerns, require an adequate factual record, and impose reasonable conditions when supported by the evidence. So you cannot know that an application complies until you have enough information to make that determination. Kulata is gonna sit here and you know, because he makes the agenda, say that this is all about public pressure. Um, no, it's clear when something clearly has further information, further guest investigation that that can come back, and those agencies have to answer for the residents also deserve clear rules on disclosure and recusal when officials have family financial business employment or other private connections to matters before the city. So council works for Milford, the planning commission works for Milford, the Board of Adjustment works for Milford, and unfortunately, so does the mayor. Thanks. Is there anyone else online? Uh no. If there's no one online, uh mayor, you can close the public comment portion. Public comments closed. We'll go ahead and go on to the uh council agenda for the workshop. Uh first uh item on is uh public officials ethics training. So hello everyone. My name is Max Walton.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com