Nicole and Tony Sittin’ In a Tree, P-I-S-S-I-N-G…
…on the current and should-be future Labor Secretary, Patrice Gilliam-Johnson.
Who are Nicole and Tony? That would be Senator Nicole Poore and disgraced ex-Senator Tony DeLuca. Poore has a six-figure sinecure from Jobs For Delaware Graduates. And DeLuca has a sinecure from the Department of Labor as Director of Labor Law Enforcement. Neither are at all qualified for their positions.
Which is why the two of them have joined together to oppose consideration of Acting Labor Secretary Patrice Gilliam-Johnson to continue in that position under Gov. Carney. She represents an existential threat to their ongoing sinecures. They even share a MYSTERY ACCOMPLICE, and you won’t believe how she’s involved with both senators.
That’ll have to wait just a wee bit longer, though, while we explain in vivid detail why both Nicole ‘n Tiny Tony fear Gilliam-Johnson’s confirmation. Starting with Tiny Tony.
Gov. Markell’s naming of Gilliam-Johnson to the Secretary of Labor post immediately represented an existential threat to DeLuca’s job. In fact, her nomination was largely driven by the perceived need to stop DOL from burying civil rights complaints:
“The News Journal in a series of stories chronicled allegations of discrimination by a coalition of African-American ministers and the NAACP that said widespread racism exists within the agency and elsewhere in state government.
Just before stepping into a closed-door meeting with the governor on Jan. 6, the Rev. Silvester Beaman, pastor of the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church and coalition member, said Markell must make “immediate personnel changes” within his government. On Tuesday, John McMahon, 73, announced he was stepping down as labor secretary.
The News Journal described DOL as ‘an embattled agency that has faced accusations of workplace racism during much of the past year.’ As to the complaints:
The DOL’s Office of Anti-discrimination found that just one of 190 claims of illegal discrimination brought by state employees had merit from 2012 until June 2015.
These weren’t investigations. These were burials caused by tossing the complaints into the trash for three years.
The two key practitioners of these civil rights coverups were DOL Secretary John McMahon, who allegedly ‘resigned to spend more time with his family’, and his trade unions henchman, Tony DeLuca. McMahon is gone, and DeLuca is in a precarious position since he was key to preventing investigation of alleged violations.
Let us now consider Sen. Nicole Poore. It must be said: She is every bit as avaricious and ethically-bankrupt as Tony DeLuca. She parlayed her Senate position into getting a job as President of Jobs For Delaware Graduates. Didn’t even take her two years. She utilized her position both in leadership and as a member of the Joint Finance/Grants-In-Aid Committee to ensure ongoing funding for her agency which, of course, is why she’s President of JDG. She used her position in leadership and on the Senate Executive Committee to place a roadblock in front of the proposed renomination of Gilliam-Johnson. Why? Did I mention the existential threat to her agency? This is purportedly a jobs program. A ‘private’ non-profit which receives significant funding from the General Assembly.
Well, take a look at a bill sponsored by Sen. Dave Sokola last session, a bill that Poore also put the kibosh on. This bill was a Markell initiative, designed to create more accountability for jobs programs, including JDG. Programs would have been judged on a competitive basis, which would not display the useless JDG in a positive light. Sources have confirmed to me that Sen. Poore used her influence to keep that bill off the Senate Agenda. Ordinarily, bills like this fly right through. However, once again, Nicole Poore misused her position to protect her fiefdom. If the Senate Ethics Committee was concerned with ethics, they would sanction these violations. But it’s not, and they won’t. Besides, guess who is a member of that committee? That’s right.
As to that MYSTERY ACCOMPLICE. Her name is Debra S. Allen. She was Tony’s Significant Other (not to be confused with his then-wife) back when she was shuttling back and forth between his Senate office and his Labor office, where she was allegedly ‘volunteering’ her time while being paid by the Senate. I made a point of keeping her name out of my articles on DeLuca b/c I felt her identity was neither relevant nor necessary in telling my story. It is now. She is still Tony’s Significant Other.
While you might have expected that Tony’s defeat at the hands of Bryan Townsend would have ended her employment with the Senate (employees don’t have Merit System protection), you would be incorrect. Patti Blevins not only kept her on without ever investigating whether she was being paid on the Senate’s dime while ‘volunteering for Tony’, but Blevins promoted her to Assistant Chief of Staff at a real nice salary boost. If you’re wondering why, keep in mind that DeLuca and Blevins were the Senate leaders before DeLuca’s defeat. And keep in mind that both of them had ‘second’ jobs courtesy of the taxpayers. And Blevins rewards Tony’s paramour with a big salary increase. Betcha she was even permitted visiting hours over at DOL. With none of that annoying ‘paperwork’. More Delaware Way crap.
By this time, you’re saying, well, Steve, this is all well and good, but what does this have to do with some unholy cabal between DeLuca, Poore, and Debra Allen?
Ladeez and Gentlemen, please allow me to introduce you to:
Debra S. Allen, Legislative Assistant to Sen. Nicole Poore.
That’s right. Allen currently works for one and only one senator: Nicole Poore. And shares her world with Tiny Tony DeLuca. All the better to coordinate opposition with, my dear. So there you have it: Tony DeLuca influencing the Senate from beyond his political grave to save the job he should never have had. And Nicole Poore using every underhanded measure to keep her useless agency afloat.
There’s one more player in this story, although ‘player’ is perhaps too strong a word. That would be Jellyfish John Carney. You see, he hasn’t technically renominated Patrice Gilliam-Johnson to be Labor Secretary. He likes her, he respects her, he went to school with her, he wants her for the position, but he’s twiddling his thumbs hoping that this impasse somehow works itself out. Only Carney’s timidity and Nicole Poore’s roadblock is holding up the nomination and confirmation. So, John, are you gonna give into the racist at DOL and the self-dealing ethical sinkhole in Dover? Or will you stand up for your friend, who happens to be good at her job? Oh, and if you’re willing to get rolled on this one, is there anything over which you won’t get rolled? Other than supporting a minimum wage increase, that is? You do have some limits.
Folks, all I can do is to offer up these stories. At some point, someone with some backbone needs to stand up and put a stop to all this. Someone or someones in elected office.
Pretty gross. It is hard to figure out what is more sickening; the transparent featherbedding by corrupt pols, or Carney’s uselessness.
It just occurred to me that judging JDG on a competitive basis could help ameliorate some of the worst outcomes from the 10% across the board budget cuts
Great job at connecting all the dots……….
As would cutting off state funding to the Fort DuPont boondoggle. Hey, maybe Carney could scare up a couple of bucks to help poor kids learn.
Thanks for the great reporting here. Can you provide more detail on what the roadblock is that Sen. Poore has placed in front of the renomination of Gilliam-Johnson? That’s one thing I don’t understand. I mean, a Senator can jam up confirmation but how do they stand in the way of mere nomination? Can’t the guv nominate anyone he wants?
(I’m sure there’s an answer here, just curious what it is)
Yes, of course he can. And, in my opinion he SHOULD have. But Carney is allowing himself to be rolled by Nicole Poore. Poore has made it clear and in no uncertain terms that she will oppose the nomination. Unless, I’d be willing to bet, that Jobs For Delaware Graduates remains exempt from scrutiny. Senatorial courtesy being what it is, and with Poore being in leadership and on the Executive Committee that would have to send the nomination to the entire floor, she has used her power to keep the nomination from moving forward. Carney has decided that he doesn’t even want to make the nomination official until/unless there is some resolution which obviously doesn’t include him exercising any leadership.
Since Patrice Gilliam-Johnson was appointed (and confirmed by the Senate) by Jack Markell with the expressed charge to address rampant racism at DOL courtesy of McMahon and DeLuca, I would hope that many of the same black ministers who pushed for a change at DOL would rise up and challenge Jellyfish John to find his manhood.
So, for the time being, she remains in limbo as Acting Secretary until Carney decides what he’s gonna do.
When is the Nicole Poore primary challenger getting ramped up? She’ sup in 2018. Easier to influence a legislative race than a statewide–like when Townsend dumped DeLuca.
Does anyone still doubt that in the current situation the Delaware Democrats are a greater threat to decent government than Delaware Republicans?
That district is a rock-solid D district. I agree. A grassroots challenger has a chance to knock her off.
Where the f is the news journal?
Great job El Som.
El Som has the News Journal beat by a mile… the only reporting in this state right now of anything political is on this site.
With the number of views this post has already garnered, I can guarantee someone at the NJ has read it.
Don’t mean to rain on your conspiracy theories but Sen. Poore was neither in leadership or a member of the JFC last session, so this statement is not accurate:
“She utilized her position both in leadership and as a member of the Joint Finance/Grants-In-Aid Committee to ensure ongoing funding for her agency which, of course, is why she’s President of JDG.”
Just when you think someone can’t go any lower, they show you that you were wrong. I don’t have a problem with your comments about current or former elected officials – they knew this was part of the deal when they decided to run for office. But your naming and shaming of a staff member to further your conspiracy theories is really disgusting. Would you have appreciated someone writing this about you when you worked there? Shame on you, El Som. This trash you’ve posted as fact with not one real shred of proof to back it up says more about you than any of the people mentioned in your bullshit post.
Sigh… yet another victim of too much power and greed. It’s a shame that private sector companies prevent qualified people from running for local office. If we had more people that didn’t need to rely on a state rep or sen salary we’d have somewhat of a firewall against this type of abuse.
SussexDem is correct. She utilized her position AS A STATE SENATOR to ensure the ongoing funding, and that’s what I should have written. Consider it corrected. However, as SD40 knows, Tom Sharp didn’t have to be on JFC to ensure that the New Castle Vo-Tech District got its funding. Neither Thurman Adams nor Gary Simpson had to be on JFC to ensure that the UD could back its Brinks Truck on June 30. Dick Cathcart didn’t have to be on JFC to ensure that Delaware State got its $$’s. Sen. Sen. Henry and Rep. Mitchell and Speaker Gilligan, et al, didn’t have to be on JFC to ensure that Del-Tech got its dollars. And Patti Blevins didn’t have to be on JFC to ensure that whatever agency or program she was working for got its money.
In fact, kids, this is a teaching experience. If your caucus selects you to be on JFC, one of your jobs is to run interference for whatever agencies/programs your caucus members want you to. Otherwise, you won’t be back on JFC.
Oh Steve. I stand by everything I wrote, with the exception of SD 40’s correction. The article was well-sourced using multiple sources.
I agree with you that, as a staff member, I wouldn’t wish to be written about in such a fashion. Which is why, as I pointed out, I did not use Debra Allen’s name in any of the many articles I wrote about DeLuca. Until now.
First, allow me to point out that, had I behaved in the manner that Ms. Allen did, I would have been fired long before I actually was fired. However, not only was she not fired, she rose up the ranks thanks to Patti Blevins. This despite the fact that her time ‘on the clock’ in the Senate and, for that matter, the time that Tony DeLuca was supposedly on the clock at the DOL, has never been made public. I mean, really, ‘volunteer work’ in Tony DeLuca’s Labor office? There’s only one thing that I can think she was doing that other DOL employees would perhaps not do. Which is not unlike what she did in Tony’s senate office. Yes, it’s low, but I didn’t invent it.
And now she and Tony and Nicole are together again. Nicole IS on both JFC and the Senate Executive Committee and is in Senate leadership. She now not only possesses the power to fund her worthless agency, but she can help control, through the budgetary process, how DOL funds are allocated, which is certainly of great interest to Tony DeLuca.
I view this as a sordid scandal, and Ms. Allen plays a key role in it. Which is the only reason I named her and pointed out what she did. To find out some of the other stuff she did, you’d have to go back and read the articles I wrote about DeLuca, and fill in the name I didn’t use. Sorry, my conscience is clear on this.
El Som is just shining the light of truth, lifting the rocks and the cockroaches are scrambling. Don’t be deterred by this negativity.
The key role this staffer played – are you serious? She staffed a Pro Tem in his senate and department of labor offices, do you honestly think that was her idea or perhaps it was communicated to her by her boss that this was required of her in order to keep her job? So you’re saying that when you were employed there, you weren’t expected to work on things that were clearly outside of the normal duties and responsibilities for a legislative staffer? I guess all those elections you claimed you volunteered for, you wanted to do every single one, no one ever communicated to you that this was what was expected of you? I have real trouble believing that. Could she have declined working in both places, sure. Would she have kept her job with the senate if she did say no? Who knows – but I do know if its 2009 (when DeLuca became Pro Tem) and the country is in a great recession, you probably don’t take a chance on losing your job by saying “that’s not my job, I won’t do it.”
You’re blaming a woman for not telling the legislators she served that she would not do what they asked, would not accept a promotion, and most recently you’re intimating what – that she orchestrated her staffing assignment? Seriously? Did you tell the legislators you worked for no, you would not comply with their requests? Perhaps you did, and maybe that’s why she is still there and you are not. You are giving this employee power in situations where you know from your own experiences that she is not on equal footing. Like I said, I have no problem with you going after those people who are in charge, the one’s with the actual power to make these decisions and execute their plans, but to go after someone you know was not calling the shots is just despicable.
Please. Talk about revisionist history. She ‘volunteered’ (not my word) at the Department of Labor? She was never an employee of DOL. She and Tony were an item. She didn’t have to go there to keep her job, she went there to be with her lover. I’m sorry. That’s the fact, Jack. Unless you can provide ANY credible evidence that DeLuca in any way suggested that she had to sleep with him to keep her job (and, believe me, I’d be more than happy to research that), then you’re just blowing smoke. They are STILL together, and she’s in it up to her ears with Tony and Nicole.
In my job, I had to go to where the senators worked. But Tom Sharp never asked or demanded that I ‘volunteer’ to help out the Vo-Tech District, Bob Marshall never asked or demanded that I ‘volunteer’ at the Delaware Skills Center. I was there to handle Senate assignments, both providing them with completed assignments and to get new assignments. I doubt the thought would have crossed their minds, and it certainly didn’t cross mine.
I don’t get your argument at all. In fact, I think that by making it, you are trivializing women who do find themselves in that situation. But that’s not what happened here.
I never suggested any such thing, and frankly it’s not relevant to discuss their personal relationship. At the office, for better or worse, she wasn’t the one with the power. The fact that at some point the nature of their personal relationship changed does not mean that he was not the one calling the shots. As an employee of the legislature, absent merit protection, you really have very little leverage with which to refuse to do what is asked of you. Yes, she could have said no, but did she feel like that was a viable option? I am guessing she did not, although like you, I am no more certain of these things than you are. What I do know is instead of acknowledging the very simple premise that in the staff versus legislator equation, 99.9% of the power rests with the legislator, you are choosing to make light of sexual harassment and sexual assault by making unfounded allegations to that end. It’s gross, you owe that woman an apology, as you’ve slandered her name and her reputation. Again, I don’t give a shit that you do it to public officials, this person is not one, didn’t sign up for it, and shouldn’t be treated with such callous disregard. This post isn’t news, it’s sleaze and innuendo. I hope the next time you take shots at Trump for his fake news, you would do well to remember your own bullshit.
And you’re suggesting, without any proof whatsoever, that she was placed in this position. Do you have any proof, or are you just in troll mode? Because I don’t believe that she was EVER placed in such a situation. So, if you’re gonna claim, and I quote, “you are choosing to make light of sexual harassment and sexual assault by making unfounded allegations”, then back it up. Was there sexual assault and sexual harassment in this case, or wasn’t there? Answer the question or STFU.
And, yes her involvement is now germane. DeLuca made a mockery of what an elected official should be. And here he is again, teaming w/ Poore and Allen to stop reform in the DOL. They’re all part of the problem.
The News Journal belatedly discovers the DOL impasse, but doesn’t mention why. Carney says that a choice for Secretary could be ‘months away’:
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2017/03/01/could-june-before-governor-nominates-labor-head/98603782/
“Carney said he has discussed possible picks for labor secretary with all 21 state senators but declined to reveal what was said in those conversations.”
There’s only one senator who matters, and Carney doesn’t have the guts to challenge her. That’s the story.
Last time I checked, your “beliefs” do not equal matters of fact. For example, I believe you are a bitter, sad old man who needs to get a life. I don’t know this for a fact, I just believe it to be true.
You’ve crossed a line and you know it. Staff is off limits, especially the rank and file staff members. If you can’t come up with a decent conspiracy theory without slandering a staffer, you aren’t trying hard enough. If you think she should have been fired when DeLuca lost, then your issue is with Patti Blevins, not this staffer. If you have a problem with her current staffing assignment, then your issue is with Nicole Poore or whomever made that decision. Stop assigning blame to the person who is not empowered to make those decisions. Did you want to take the hits for the people you staffed? I am sure you did not, and I really doubt you ever did, especially not like this. PS- the reason the NJ would never cover this, nor would any reputable, ethical reporter worth their salt, is because this is not newsworthy content. It’s the rambling diary entry of a middle-aged man with too much time on his hands.
I wonder why the NJ didn’t publish the fact that they got a “no comment” from Poore?
I will repeat the question I asked and that you did not answer:
if you’re gonna claim, and I quote, “you are choosing to make light of sexual harassment and sexual assault by making unfounded allegations”, then back it up. Was there sexual assault and sexual harassment in this case, or wasn’t there?
Was there or wasn’t there? If there wasn’t, you’re just trying to change the subject. Answer the question.
The News Journal won’t cover it b/c I don’t think they have the sources to get the info that I did. I totally stand behind my story. A staffer who is also the significant other of a corrupt public official and who enables not one, but two, public officials to circumvent the public good is a lot more empowered, to use your word, than you’re willing to acknowledge.
BTW, I don’t blame the staffer for the promotions. I blame the Delaware Way as embodied in the relationship between Blevins and DeLuca.
Oh, and answer the question or you’re going in moderation.
I think someone’s reading comprehension skills are in need of some work.
In my comments, I stated that “She staffed a Pro Tem in his senate and department of labor offices, do you honestly think that was her idea or perhaps it was communicated to her by her boss that this was required of her in order to keep her job?” Which I meant exactly that, she was assisting him with whatever administrative functions he required, regardless if she was on the official payroll at the department of labor and that this was considered to be part of what she signed up for when she took the job in the senate.
Your perverted mind read the comment above, and responded with, “Talk about revisionist history. She ‘volunteered’ (not my word) at the Department of Labor? She was never an employee of DOL. She and Tony were an item. She didn’t have to go there to keep her job, she went there to be with her lover. I’m sorry. That’s the fact, Jack. Unless you can provide ANY credible evidence that DeLuca in any way suggested that she had to sleep with him to keep her job (and, believe me, I’d be more than happy to research that), then you’re just blowing smoke.”
So as you can see, you’re the one who randomly brought sexual harassment and sexual assault into the conversation, by making an unfounded allegation based on your inability to read what I actually wrote, choosing instead to create your own narrative to make the story even more salacious without any factual basis for your claim.
I responded with “What I do know is instead of acknowledging the very simple premise that in the staff versus legislator equation, 99.9% of the power rests with the legislator, you are choosing to make light of sexual harassment and sexual assault by making unfounded allegations to that end.” Meaning that you won’t just admit that the power dynamic between legislator and staffer is one where the staffer has very little power to refuse any request from the people they serve. Because you can’t acknowledge that this is 100% true, you instead decided to insert unnecessary and unsubstantiated personal information as part of your response, for what purpose I have no clue.
So just to recap, I take issue with you making wild accusations of which you have no proof. I find sexual harassment and sexual assault to be extremely serious matters, and I don’t casually suggest or imply that a person has committed these crimes with no evidence to support such claims. Every time you do that, you are trivializing the real experiences that far too many women face in the workplace and in their lives in general.
She did no staffing at DOL. She was not employed at DOL. It was someone ELSE’S job to do the work at DOL, a State Employee or several state employees. Was she on the Senate’s dime or not when she ‘volunteered’ over there? Both the Senate and DOL have stonewalled on personnel records despite FOIA requests from the News Journal. And she WAS having an intimate personal relationship with him, one that led to the dissolution of his marriage. That is substantiated. So spare the naivete. Either she suffers from Stockholm Syndrome or she got into this with her eyes wide open.
So. My accusations are well-founded. You portray her as a victim who had no choice but to do what she did. There is not a shred of evidence to support that. In fact, her income rose appreciably regardless of her alleged victimhood.
This is a Delaware Way story. DeLuca, Poore and Allen have all benefited from the Delaware Way. Yes, Allen. A lot of people who I knew from the Hall couldn’t believe it when she got that position. I was long gone by then, but it didn’t surprise me at all, as this is a Delaware Way story, and she was a beneficiary. I grant you that DeLuca and Poore are more grotesque beneficiaries, but all three are inextricably linked together. And they’re working together to place their own interests over the best interests of the people they are sworn to serve.
Which is where we came in. You have made your point, and I get it. In something like the eight years or so that I’ve written here, I have never outed a staff member before. I did not out Ms. Allen during all of the previous articles about DeLuca. But this is different. She is teaming with DeLuca and Poore to prevent true reform from coming to DOL for the reasons that I’ve laid out. I believe she’s an integral part of the story. Which is the only reason why I’ve done what I did.
You think I’m wrong. I disagree. That’s it.
“The News Journal won’t cover it b/c I don’t think they have the sources to get the info that I did. I totally stand behind my story.”
Pretty sure you meant that just one source fed you this juicy tale, and it’s fairly easy to discern who that was. For what it’s worth, retired state legislators as well as former legislative staffers can’t pitch these kinds of stories to actual reporters because they don’t write gossip columns for their publications. You would do well to consider your future sources’ motivations should they return with similar tales that emphasize personal matters that are really none of yours or their business
Uh, Steve, I always consider my sources’ motivations before writing something. Which, in every case, means I need enough to verify anything any one source might say.
But, you’re wrong as to the sources. There were several, and I wouldn’t describe any as having axes to grind.
Which would make them different from you. But thank you for advice on how to practice good journalism. I really appreciate it.
“You portray her as a victim who had no choice but to do what she did. There is not a shred of evidence to support that. In fact, her income rose appreciably regardless of her alleged victimhood.”
Seriously, just shut the fuck up. I never called nor implied that she was a victim. I was clear and consistent in my comments with respect to the power dynamics between a legislator and their staffer. The fact that you won’t concede this point really does speak to why such a bastion of institutional knowledge and legislative experience such as yourself is no longer in their employ – it seems like you really didn’t understand the basic premise of that job. I have no idea how many current legislators and staff still acknowledge your existence, but I’d bet my next paycheck this will be a smaller group in the future. You don’t cross the line you crossed without repercussions, I’m guessing that will be yours.
Thanks again, Steve. I’ve always enjoyed these kinds of attempts to delegitimize stories. When all else fails, it comes down to why I’m no longer there.
I was there for about 22 years, most of it working for the Senate Majority Caucus as one of two Chief Administrative Assistants to the Senate D’s. Also two years as the Research Analyst for the Joint Sunset Committee early on. I ran for a House seat. I lost. Went back two years to work for the House. Was fired with no explanation by Val Longhurst. I now wear that as a Badge of Honor.
I don’t miss it a bit. Make of that what you will. You are now moving to ad hominem attacks. It’s time to end this conversation.
Just so I am clear on what constitutes the “Delaware Way” in your eyes – a senate staffer chooses to resign their position, runs for state representative, loses, then immediately secures another staff position in the house, however this does not constitute an example of the “Delaware Way”.
In contrast, a staffer whose assigned legislator loses their primary, and the staffer is not fired, but is promoted instead is an example of the “Delaware Way”. Correct?
Perhaps it’s just me, but I fail to see much difference in those two instances. I only make this point to highlight how you weren’t raging against the “Delaware Way” and calling it corrupt when it served you well personally by getting you a job in the legislature when you needed one, but now it is everything that is wrong with this state when it appears unavailable for your benefit and use.
You are wrong, Steve. I did not immediately get a staff position in the House. It was only after I helped Bryon Short win a special election two years after I had run that I was hired by the House. The House had added several new D members by then and they staffed up accordingly.
And I was hired at a much lower salary than my Senate salary. I paid my dues.
That was your last comment. You are now way off topic and into personal attacks. The next one goes in moderation.
That was a good feast of Red Herrings, but the post remains untouched. The rank corruption and featherbedding in the Delaware Senate has been exposed by this stalled appointment, and Carney doesn’t look to be up to the task of taking it on.
That’s the bottom line.
A Good Feast of Red Herrings. Very good.
Shaming a staff member? You mean, more than she shamed herself by taking up with her married boss?
The really funny part is that Steve thinks he’s morally right. That’s what Dover will do to you. Fucking your married boss? Is that part of the Delaware Way too?
Wow. Didn’t think my comment was too hot to touch but I guess it was a little too personal for the respectful tone of this post.
Trolling for trolling’s sake is frowned upon. If you have any thoughts on the rank corruption and featherbedding in the Delaware Senate or Carney’s non-interest in taking it on, I’d be eager to read them.
Yeah sorry for trolling. Next time I’ll draw a link to El Som’s “key role” in writing this garbage before I blast him on the internet.
Don’ t beat yourself up over it.
I have seen nothing from the Poore partisans — or are they Allen partisans? — doing anything but attacking the messenger.
If you folks have a point, perhaps you could try to make it without trashing the messenger. Otherwise you’re engaging in as much hypocrisy as you are charging him with.
Here’s what you acknowledge by your silence: These creeps hire each other with the public’s money. Tony DeLuca spit in the public’s face for Allen’s sake when he built his little fortress for the two of them to hide behind in Leg Hall. There’s no way an open search for either of their jobs (DeLuca’s and Poore’s) would have settled on them as the best hire, nor would any of the rest of the featherbedded Democrats in the Assembly, who are legion even before you add in their relatives and significant others, which amount to government waste on the hoof.
Democrats in Delaware are crooked, but rather than steal money outright they give themselves and each other soft, pocket-lining jobs. We all know it. You do, too, which is why you’re talking about other things.
So, y’know, shorter way of putting it would be fuck off, and fuck yourself while you’re at it.
Good call. I’ll beat up my staff instead.
For the record, the bill that Poore is accused of putting the kibosh on? She doesn’t have the power to do that without the sponsor being in agreement. What El Som conveniently excluded from his post is the fact that in the Senate, the prime sponsor of the bill is the one that has a bill put on the agenda. At the end of every session day before they adjourn, any senator with a bill on the ready list can ask that their bill be added to an upcoming senate agenda. The bill he referenced was on the senate ready list, but Sokola failed to have it added to an agenda. Poore may have asked him not to move it, but it was his choice as to whether or not that bill got a vote on the floor. It’s this kind of bs that undermines El Soms credibility when it comes to his general assembly coverage. He knew this but because it didn’t fit in with the trashing of Nicole Poore narrative, so why would he share it?
Insisting on that kind of boilerplate bullshit might fly with the newspaper, but you and I both know that “put the kibosh on” is not a technical term. There are all kinds of ways to do that without leaving fingerprints.
You’re playing defense lawyer and claiming, “But there are no fingerprints!”
Take it to court. She doesn’t deserve the job, period, and all sorts of questionably deserving non-profits benefit from this Delaware Way bullshit.
If that’s your point, you’ve made it, and you have helpfully provided a microscope so we could see it. Thank you.
Have not heard one person deny that Poore and DeLuca are sabotaging the confirmation of Dr. Gilliam due to her dedication to getting rid of the old bigots in DOL. I thought that was the story?
It IS the story, and you’re correct.
BTW, one more reason Tiny Tony was unhappy? Gilliam-Johnson made him work out of the main DOL office in Wilmington rather than at his cozy hideaway in Pencader.
That must have done a number on his manhood.
This guy is a leech on the body politic.
I want to know why the state is funding development at Fort Delaware when the state’s own Department of Natural Resources has an interactive Sea Level Rise Inundation Map that shows more than half of Fort Delaware’s land mass under water at just a .5 meter rise in sea level.
DNREC link: http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/pages/slrmaps.aspx
To add insult to injury, while the state is spending millions to put people on a land mass that will be completely under water in 50 years, they are simultaneously planning on not defending large swaths of land from water intrusion (example: Kitts Hummock), leaving the people there stuck with worthless property.
Great handle. Couldn’t agree more:
http://delawareliberal.net//2017/02/28/how-a-potential-boondoggle-became-a-full-fledged-boondoggle/
Nicole Poore’s involved in that one as well.
Thanks for that link to the inundation map. It is pretty clear that we shouldn’t really be doing any building east of Routes 13 or 1.
Go back and find out how the “allegations” of racism started in the DOL. A group of self appointed reverends from the city of Wilmington (one who wanted the Sec of Labor position) submitted a slanted report to then governor Markell that there was racism in the DOL…(accually i think it was State agencies). Then a black female was hired as HR person removed 8 white males from the DOL. Lately there has been 2 positions filled one created for black females. Hmmm maybe there is racism in the DOL. We really need to comb all state agencies for racism. Maybe DOC should be investigated !!
Yeah! When are whites ever going to get a fair shake in this country?!
Make Antebellum Great Again
Must be Happy Hour at some trade union hall somewhere.
Thank you, Doug, for making my point for me. Those bleeping black females. What ever are we gonna do with them?
“Then a black female was hired as HR person removed 8 white males from the DOL.”
Really? These were union members and were discharged for no reason? Sounds like bullshit to me, unless you can show me the resulting lawsuits.
“Have not heard one person deny that Poore and DeLuca are sabotaging the confirmation of Dr. Gilliam due to her dedication to getting rid of the old bigots in DOL. I thought that was the story?”
That’s the conspiracy theory El Som is trying to sell here, however he crossed the line by naming the staffer, and then vilifying her for doing her job – he’s the worst kind of hypocrite being a former staffer himself.
I have no clue if the other part has merit or not. I do apply some heavy skepticism whenever the post contains several alternative facts that can be easily checked and deemed false, then others where only a portion of the story is shared. What makes this all seem completely implausible is that you’d have to buy it that a person who wasn’t in office all that long had amassed that kind of power. A whip in her second term manages to stall a cabinet position getting filled without any help? It took all 10 republicans to kill the Dnrec appointment, but this one senator with a former Pro Tem sidekick were able to take this candidate for reappointment to a Cabinet post down on their own? I’m curious how that actually worked out – if there were a few republican votes in favor, as there could have been, that’s leaves the story in limbo
A whip in her second term gets a six-figure job without help?
What, are staffers some kind of protected class who shouldn’t be named?
The overheated pearl clutching on a question of style, appears to validate the content of the post.
She got the job in her first term. Her expanded power enables her to try to stop Gilliam-Johnson’s renomination.
As to outing a staffer, I think Steve should read this:
http://delawareliberal.net//2017/03/02/when-bad-things-happen-to-relentless-trolls/
Steve may call it crossing the line. I call it performing a public service. One way or another, she got paid for work that she didn’t perform.