Statements by Brian E. Lewis
596 statements from meeting recordings, newest meeting first.
Machine transcript. Statements are matched to this official by machine and can be wrong. Check the recording.
Dec 9, 2025, Council Committee of the Whole Meeting
Thank you. Um Mr. Mr. Chairman, um there may be other ideas um for the purpose of just the limited purpose of ideas on this, I request permission to yield to Mr. Sudler.
Play from 51:53Dec 9, 2025, Council Committee of the Whole Meeting
That's fine.
Play from 52:12Dec 9, 2025, Council Committee of the Whole Meeting
That's That's fine, and that's that's why I just requested it, and that and I uh appreciate that.
Play from 52:16Dec 9, 2025, Council Committee of the Whole Meeting
And uh at this time I'm going to yield, Mr. Chairman, to Councilman Rocha.
Play from 52:21Dec 9, 2025, Council Committee of the Whole Meeting
the dangers of time elapsed by barriers to fire apparatus. Chief?
Play from 1:02:15Dec 9, 2025, Council Committee of the Whole Meeting
Chief, I didn't mean to put you on the spot, but thank you for your input. Now I'd like to call another expert. Mr. Will Garfinkel, would you come to the podium, please, and tell us about your experience with the traffic-calming devices on Independence Boulevard? And by the way, I think you'll get double pay for this.
Play from 1:04:59Dec 9, 2025, Council Committee of the Whole Meeting
So, Mr. Garfinkel... Mr. Chairman, if I might continue?
Play from 1:05:17Dec 9, 2025, Council Committee of the Whole Meeting
Mr. Garfinkel, would you please expound to us the success or failure of the traffic-calming devices in your neighborhood on Independence Boulevard?
Play from 1:05:24Dec 9, 2025, Council Committee of the Whole Meeting
is not did not feel. That's just that. Um, anyway, anyone else? All right.
Play from 1:54:41Dec 9, 2025, Council Committee of the Whole Meeting
Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions? Uh going once, going twice, going three times. Thank you.
Play from 1:55:32Dec 9, 2025, Council Committee of the Whole Meeting
Is there any Is there any other business before the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee? Seeing none, we stand adjourned.
Play from 1:55:41Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Yes.
Play from 1:15:13Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
So it was mandated by the state?
Play from 1:22:07Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Okay. Um, that answered my question then. No further questions, thank you.
Play from 1:22:09Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Mr. Nowak, what's your justification on this ordinance, and does it have to do with the fact that you thought it may have been too lax?
Play from 1:22:21Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Makes sense to me. Thank you, Eddie.
Play from 1:24:55Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Thank you. The importance of a of communication privilege communication being known by us what we're waiving is the fact that if we have it ahead of time, we can waive it and have it in public because we know the scope of it. Um, you know, I just have a principle issue of waiving privileged communication that I have no idea what the scope is, and we can go in executive session for 3-5 minutes and find out what it is.
Play from 1:38:12Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Second withdrawn.
Play from 1:38:18Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
So this is for the city solicitor, based on uh his statement in response to Ms. Marks' question. Um so there are other means that can be utilized under state code with respect to intoxication and, and so on. Is that correct?
Play from 1:44:05Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
So my concern is, Mr. Solicitor, is if the Attorney General's office uh is refusing to enforce it, uh I mean, she's our chief law enforcement officer. Um how do you feel about uh our local police enforcing this uh if in fact this ordinance passes? I mean, we have our chief law enforcement officer um directing uh all departments in the state of Delaware not to enforce loitering and other offenses?
Play from 1:44:39Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Well, Mr. Solicitor, aren't they all safety issues?
Play from 1:45:33Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
I don't know, if I was in a court of law, I think I'd rest my case at this point. Um but uh I do have a statement that I'd like to read into the record, uh Mr. Neil.
Play from 1:45:46Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
I kindly took silence over this uh this code uh other than uh or this proposed ordinance, other than uh asking uh questions to our police chief. But uh over the weekend, I've done some research, and uh I uh went in depth and actually uh even spoke to uh an acquaintance who is a uh US District Court judge, uh and I wrote a statement out that I'd like to read into the record as I just so indicated. Uh while safety is undoubtedly important, it must be achieved within the framework of individual freedom and limited government interventions to ensure a thriving and vibrant society. We must remember sacrificing too much freedom in the name of safety can lead down a perilous path. To maintain a just and prosperous society, it is essential to cherish and uphold the principle of individual liberty. Courts have consistently determined that the act of asking for money in public space
Play from 1:45:57Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
constitutes a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Let's face it, folks. Um, you know, we all know that this ordinance originated, okay, by panhandling in the city. Okay? It wasn't originated by the fire department out there soliciting for funds for the fire department, or um school children uh working fundraisers and holding car wash signs. Are they not safety issues, too? How come we're not addressing those? Okay?
Play from 1:46:59Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Uh let me further read on. "This protection extends beyond political or artistic expression to include solicitation for immediate personal financial assistance. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that soliciting charitable contributions is a protected form of speech. The lower courts have broadly applied this principle to individual panhandling. Therefore, any government attempt to prohibit this activity is viewed as restriction on speech. A law that fails any part of this three-part test is likely to be found unconstitutional. A city cannot ban panhandling simply because some people find it annoying or because officials want to improve the city's image," Mr. Mayor. "Courts have found that this government's interest in, for example, preventing nuisance is not compelling enough to justify a content-based ban on panhandling. Any ordinance that singles out the act of begging or prohibition while allowing other forms of public address or solicitation will likely be invalidated." Now the public brought up some um some very interesting topics uh at our
Play from 1:47:30Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
last meeting and tonight's meeting. And I wrote a couple of them down. And one of them, is it a fair, is it fair to restrict the speech of those in need, number one? Number two, again, okay, I know we can't uh discriminate against panhandling, but again, I think this ordinance originated from that, in my opinion. Do panhandling bans address the problem or do they simply push out of sight? And the last and final um statement that was brought up by many people that were in attendance at the last meeting and tonight's meeting is, should the City of Dover focus more on providing resources like housing, mental health services, and job training instead of penalizing those on the medians? I think those things um are very valid and I thank the public for bringing those up. And that's all I have. Well, with that, thank you and good night.
Play from 1:48:46Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Councilwoman Hall, I have them on my phone, can I bring them over to you?
Play from 1:58:09Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Make sure these are the right ones. Thank you. There's another two down here.
Play from 1:58:18Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
To make it easier, these are the two down here.
Play from 1:58:29Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
All right. Thank you. Under Title 21, and this is 4146, pedestrians in roadways obstructing traffic, 4146(a) states a pedestrian cannot stand in a roadway if it interferes with traffic flow. And then (b), a pedestrian cannot walk along or stand on the roadway when a sidewalk is available. And then if you go under Title 21 4177(b), obstruction of driver's view: a person cannot be positioned in a way that blocks or interferes with a driver's clear view of the roadway. Title 21 4144 states pedestrians right-of-way on sidewalks and safety zones...
Play from 1:58:43Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
areas. Um so that's what I googled and uh just found. I don't know if they're the statute you were referring to,
Play from 1:59:28Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Title 21, which we currently have that the police department can and should be enforced. Thank you.
Play from 1:59:36Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
So the portions of section uh um the code for 21, everything that was read is basically for the solicitor, that was what you were referring to that the Attorney General said that they would not enforce?
Play from 2:03:04Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Why Why can't we just ask for a report from somebody over at DelDOT to submit to us with respect to their opinion?
Play from 2:46:01Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Well, instead of getting the mayor involved, I would suggest the solicitor reach out to them. And otherwise, I can't support this ordinance- excuse- this motion.
Play from 2:46:16Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Um good evening. I have a question uh with respect to uh I have your action form right here, and uh my question is how does it how does it qualify as sole source of procurement? Because I looked up the uh City of Dover purchasing policy and procedures, and uh section six, exceptions, it states sole source procurement is not permissible unless a requirement is available from only a single supplier manufacturer. Um it goes on to say, "The following are examples of circumstances which could necessitate sole source procurement. Uh a, where the compatibility of equipment, accessories, uh, or replacement parts is the uh paramount consideration. Um then b, where the sole supplier item is needed for trial use or testing." That's my first question. My second question is, who's this being awarded to? Awarded to whom?
Play from 2:57:11Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Yeah, I wouldn't want anybody to do anything, uh, illicit or not by the policy. That's why I bring it to your attention.
Play from 2:59:17Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Um, now who's this going to be awarded to?
Play from 3:00:06Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
Okay. Thank you. Um that's all the questions I have at this time. I may come back uh
Play from 3:00:34Dec 8, 2025, Regular Council Meeting
For the record, I'm just going to abstain on this action.
Play from 3:01:07