From Business to Council: My Journey in Dover

Since 1986, Dover has been my home. I’ve raised a family here, built a business here, and worked hard to serve this community on the City Council for the past two years. Today, I’m proud to announce that I’m running for re-election—because I believe in Dover, and I want to keep fighting for the people who make it such a special place to live and work.

Public service isn’t new to me—it’s simply an extension of what I’ve been doing my entire adult life. In 1994, my wife and I opened Atlantic Gymnastics with fewer than 100 students. Today, we serve over 1,500 students across two locations and employ a staff of 40. It’s been a journey of passion, perseverance, and growth. I’ve also been fortunate to build a reputation as a respected gymnastics coach on the world stage. But the most important lesson I’ve learned through all of it has nothing to do with winning competitions—it’s about showing up and doing the hard work, every single day. In business, in coaching, and in public service, that’s what it takes to make a difference.

On the City Council, I’ve brought that same work ethic. I’ve helped residents with both everyday concerns and larger issues like Dover’s budget. I’ve worked to make sure city decisions reflect the voices of our people—balancing affordability, economic growth, and the character of our community. I’ve fought for transparency, fairness, and smart investment. And while I haven’t won every fight, I’ve shown up for all of them—because that’s what Dover deserves.

Dover should be a place for all—a place where families can afford to live, where workers can thrive, and where seniors can stay. That’s the kind of city I want to continue building together.

This campaign is not about politics—it’s about action. It’s about service. It’s about continuing the work. I’m asking for your support, your ideas, and your vote to keep showing up, working hard, and fighting for Dover.

My Sincere Thanks To All The Voters of Dover

I am deeply moved by the expression of confidence from the residents of Dover’s Ward 3, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I also need to thank Jan Nedelka  for  his guidance and advice and Deb Thibodeaux whose advice and introductions to Ward 3 voters gave me the confidence to run. My opponent, Mr Eric Spurling,  is a total class act.  He ran a great campaign and I know he will continue to help the city.  

Being an effective City Councilor involves listening to constituents, translating their concerns into workable proposals, and building consensus to implement them. I could not do this job without the involvement and openness of the people I represent. You have taken the time to share with me your ideas, your concerns, and your aspirations, and I sincerely appreciate your willingness to discuss what really matters to you. Not only have you entrusted me with the responsibility of speaking on your behalf as your city councilor, but you also continue to provide me with the ideas and feedback I need. For that, I thank you once again.  

Our beautiful city faces many challenges but we can overcome them by working together towards our common goals.  I look forward to representing you and to work for you as  we strive to make Dover a City where we can all live, work and raise a family.

I send a hearty thank you to ALL voters of Dover who made their voices heard, by showing up and voting on Tuesday. I spent a great deal of time knocking on doors and meeting many people at events  I’ll continue to be very conscious of the fact that I’m working for you, the best interests of our community and all residents. If you have an issue or information I need to hear, please feel free to contact me.

Tony Retrosi

and thank you to my amazing family.

Reasons City Government Shouldn’t Be Run Like A Business

I recently had a meeting with Dover City Manager , Mike Joyal. Later that night I attended Dovers Citizen Leadership Academy. The topic came up of why you cannot run city government like a business. In its simplest form- the accounting is VERY different.

The difference between running a business and running a city boils down to this: Try closing a local, little used fire station to save a few bucks. Outraged neighbors of all political stripes would storm the city council in protest.

Now compare that to the silence that typically follows a corporate decision to close an underperforming store like BED, BATH and BEYOND. No one really cared. You will just order your sheets online. You cannot order road repairs through AMAZON.

The reactions are different and for good reason. Although corporations and governments are organizations, that may be one of the few traits they have in common. The role of a business, any business, is to make money.

My business is successful because we produce a service that consumers want. In addition, we must continuously try to find ways to reduce costs to better meet the bottom line.

Although governments must respond to the desires of their constituents (consumers) by providing necessary services (products), here the path diverges because public officials, unlike those in the private sector, must balance meeting the bottom line with the expectation that they will also provide for the common good, however that’s defined.

With Reaganism of the 1980’s came the idealistic political stance that government should be run like a business with the President as both CEO and Commander in Chief and Americans as shareholders and customers. Here are three reasons why the government shouldn’t be run like a business.

Profit vs. People: A corporation’s mission is to make profits. This isn’t just good business sense – it’s also a legally binding component of incorporating. Government’s mission is to to provide for all citizens through the “common good” – things like roads, schools, and police protection. In fact, if a government is profiting, then they are probably hoarding tax dollars for no good reason. Microsoft may be smart for keeping $36.1 billion in cash and liquid short-term investments, but the government would be letting people down if they sat on that much money and weren’t using it to keep the country running.

Shareholders vs. Citizens: There are 535 people in Congress, the President, and nine judges. All of these politicians and judges answer to over 300 million Americans. That’s a lot of decision makers, but it’s this system of checks and balances that works to ensure each person’s voice is heard. It isn’t perfect (lobbyists/special interests/and corruption still exist), but consider the alternative. As a minor shareholder in a major company you wouldn’t even have the opportunity to vote on major business decisions—like whether or not to remove a failing CEO.

Customers vs. Constituents: Companies have the luxury of dumping a line of business because it isn’t profitable or choose to streamline their offerings to serve just one sector of the population. Government agencies do not have this option. This is a good thing. Imagine if Apple ran the government. Fire and Police departments would only answer calls to the homes of twenty-something hipsters, we’d have to use iTunes to file our taxes, and all legal disputes would be resolved at the Genius Bar. It would be horrible.

The Blueberry Story

Here Is The House GOP’s Hit List If Republicans Retake Congress

From tech companies to Merrick Garland to Anthony Fauci, the list of investigation targets for the House GOP is long.

By Jonathan Nicholson

If Republicans win back control of Congress in November, buckle up for many, many investigations. 

House Republicans have offered few details of what sorts of governing and legislation they’d like to accomplish if they prevail in the midterms, but they haven’t been shy about making an enemies’ list. 

HuffPost went through House Republicans’ “Commitment to America” campaign document, public statements by party leaders and other accounts of investigation plans, showing a list of almost two dozen targets. And if one includes all the topics House Republicans have at least formally expressed an interest in looking into, the number of probe or hearing targets rises to more than 70.

Some of these may be subsets of others — “treatment of school closure protesters” could be part of a “the politicization of the Justice Department” probe, for example – but the target list runs the gamut, from the Afghanistan withdrawal to investigating the president’s son, Hunter.

Here’s the list: 

While this list is extensive, it may be too conservative. In the current Congress that began last year, House Republicans have filed 56 “resolutions of inquiry,” formal congressional resolutions asking specific parts of the administration to hand over documents and communications on matters of interest, potentially for later investigations.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) would likely head up the House Judiciary Committee if Republicans win House control in November and spearhead several panel investigations.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) would likely head up the House Judiciary Committee if Republicans win House control in November and spearhead several panel investigations.

While none of the resolutions have passed the House to force the administration to provide the materials, the amount and breadth of subjects — from seeking information on the “projected inflationary impact” of various big-ticket bills Democrats have passed to wanting information on failed anti-COVID drug ivermectin — provide another roadmap to potential GOP probe and hearing interest.

(In some cases, different lawmakers filed similar resolutions on the same subject or some resolutions were filed in slightly different form by the same lawmaker.)

Those subjects include (with wording coming directly from the resolutions):

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the likely chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which would head up many of these potential probes, told HuffPost the investigations were not retaliatory, despite the potential number and scope of them.

“No, it’s our constitutional duty,” he said. “The Judiciary Committee, we’re going to look at the immigration issue, we’re going to look at all the politics of the DOJ. That’s what we should do. We’ll do it in a way that’s consistent with the Constitution,” he said.

“Our main focus right now is winning. We’ve got to go out and win this election so let’s see what happens there. I think we’re going to.”