Democratic Committee weighs endorsement decision in final days of mayoral race

On Tuesday, Feb 11, 2025, the Swarthmore Democratic Committee will meet to officially vote to endorse candidates for Borough Council and Mayoral elections.

The mayoral seat, in particular, has received scrutiny in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s meeting, both because the high number of registered Democrats in the Borough generally leads to endorsed candidates being elected, and because, unlike previous election cycles, there are a number of candidates seeking endorsement.

Originally, three candidates were vying for the mayoral seat–Borough Council members Kristen Seymore and David Boonin, and Fire Chief Conlen Booth. Boonin announced his withdrawal from the race in January, citing his desire to remain on Council and his expectation that he will have seniority to select his committee. His exit left Booth and Seymore to earn the endorsement from the 21 Democratic Committee members.

Last week, two members of the Democratic Committee raised concerns about what they characterized as a “smear campaign” being waged by Seymore, consisting of questions regarding Booth’s eligibility to serve as both the fire chief and as mayor and surrounding his political affiliation.

Seymore acknowledged that she sought clarification on these points from Democratic Party leadership and state guidelines, and explained that she did so for clarity on questions that were not being discussed among the Committee, and “not to disparage Booth as a candidate, but to gain certainty about what the law is.”

Booth, who has been an Independent, recently registered as a Democrat in order to seek the mayoral endorsement.

“I have extremely Democratic ideals,” Booth explained. “But I have been an Independent since the day I could vote because of my internal feelings about the two-party system and some of its failings.”

Booth acknowledged he didn’t take this decision lightly.

“I struggled with the decision to switch my party affiliation to Democrat, not at all because of a belief structure or ideals that don't align, but because I feel that to have to switch to be part of it [the two-party system] is what I think is wrong with politics in the entire country, not in our Borough.”

Regarding questions of potential conflict surrounding his service as both fire chief and mayor, Borough leadership is clear Booth is not a Borough employee. He is a volunteer serving with the Swarthmore Fire and Protective Services (SFPA).

“The Fire Company is an independent body,” Borough Solicitor Bob Scott said. “The Borough does not appoint its board of directors. It’s an independent company that is not a

Borough department.”

Should potential matters arise regarding the SFPA, Booth indicated he would consider recusing himself if there was an appearance of a conflict of interest, but he does not believe there is an inherent conflict with serving in both roles.

“I am the operational arm, so I do not vote on matters of finance,” Booth said. “I do believe that there may be instances where the Council is voting on things for SFPA, and I would recuse myself just because of the potential appearance, but there is no actual conflict because of the way that the bylaws of the organization are written and the separation of powers within the leadership.”

Both Booth and Seymore expressed their appreciation for each other’s service and reiterated their desire not to have the campaign focus on attacks of each other as candidates.

On Friday, Jan. 31, Demo

cratic Committee member Rob Oaks emailed a memorandum to fellow Committee members containing several allegations of Seymore’s “failure to demonstrate transparency, inclusivity, and openness in her current role as a Borough Council member,” specifically related to her tenure on the Planning and Zoning Committee and Public Safety Committee.

The five-page document alleges Seymore neglected to call meetings of the Planning and Zoning Committee, add publicly requested items to the meeting agendas, publish meeting minutes, and include comments of all meeting participants.

“I think what I identified is a pattern of behavior,” Oaks said. “Taken individually, people make mistakes, I make mistakes all the time, but the aggregate effect is one that I think is very contrary to the very platform that she’s running on.”

Seymore reviewed the document with Swarthmore Democratic Committee Chair Colleen Guiney before it was distributed to the Committee and replied with the following response.

“This has nothing to do with meeting minutes,” Seymore said. “Let no one be confused about what this group of individuals, led by Rob [Oaks], are attempting to do by creating this document. They are upset about the Park Avenue Development. This is a witch hunt and it’s disappointing.”

Seymore acknowledged her failure to post Public Safety Committee meeting minutes and noted it was corrected when it was brought to her attention through a public Right-to-Know request filed with the Borough in December 2024.

“I corrected an administrative oversight as soon as it was called to my attention,” she said.

Additionally, Seymore indicated that, per her understanding, there is no legal requirement for a committee to meet, and, in the case of the Planning and Zoning Committee, Seymore was advised by Solicitor Scott not to hold a meeting while the

Borough was facing litigation regarding the 110 Park Avenue project.

In a follow-up interview, Scott explained, “When you sit in a quasi-judicial capacity, as in the case of a conditional use hearing, you should not be discussing the matter outside of the hearings because the decision needs to be based on evidence on the record.”

Oaks does not feel this explanation meets the spirit of government transparency and insisted meetings should have been called and minutes posted.

“What's really important to me is people and how people are affected when they don’t have access to this information,” Oaks said. “For people who can’t for various reasons attend meetings, minutes really do matter.”

With less than a week until an endorsement vote, Committee members have little time to consider these claims and whether they will impact their final votes.

In follow-up interviews, multiple Committee members reiterated the importance of the Committee’s work in researching, vetting, and endorsing candidates. Oaks, in particular, said he sees the Committee endorsement process as essential in providing opportunities for candidates with fewer resources, reach, and network.

“I am not someone who believes in endorsement in a dogmatic way,” Oaks said. “We as the Committee own that right to the endorsement because we work hard on it. I think we operate at a pretty high level and there’s a lot of evidence for that in our results.”

According to Guiney, the work that has gone into the vetting process has included candidates addressing the Democratic Committee at December and January meetings, submitting a personal issue statement, completing a questionnaire, and otherwise meeting or speaking with Committee members on their own to discuss their candidacy.

“From the perspective of busy people, I think they appreciate that others are doing the vetting and appreciate people who are focusing on the issues,” Democratic Committee member Julie Clapp said. “To be able to walk up to the polls and have another layer of information from someone who has done the vetting helps people make an informed decision.”

Seymore and Booth both indicated they felt properly vetted by Committee members, but also acknowledged that neither of them had spoken with every member of the Committee. Multiple Committee members indicated the events of the last week haven’t affected their vote, while at least two are reconsidering their options. At least one Committee member could not name both candidates when asked for comment on the endorsement.

On Tuesday evening, the Committee will be asked to vote on two matters. First, 55% of those present will need to vote in the affirmative for the Committee to pursue endorsement. Should that threshold be met, a second vote, needing 50% plus one, will decide on the candidate endorsed. Guiney noted that members may only vote in person, or through an in-person proxy. A final vote breakdown will be provided to The Swarthmorean after the meeting.

“We’re talking about who's going to elect the next mayor of Swarthmore,” Seymore said. “I think it’s apparent that right now it shouldn’t be left to fewer than 20 people in this community.”

Guiney, who has chaired the Swarthmore Democratic Committee for many years, and also the Delaware County Democratic Committee more recently, is excited by the increased interest in public service and welcomes healthy debate among her Committee members. She encouraged registered Democrats to attend the Feb. 11 meeting.

“It’s very normal for there to be different groups of people supporting different candidates, so it’s not my job to prevent that from happening,” she said. “What am I going to do? I am going to hold an endorsement meeting.”