Tag Archives: Delaware legislature

Today’s Word Is: Petulant

Petulant.   pet·u·lant ˈpeCHələnt/

adjective

  1. (of a person or their manner) childishly sulky or bad-tempered.

Imagine this. You’re attending or employed by a large land grant university that receives a measly 11.9% (down from 18.9%)  of its funding from the State’s general fund, that was previously able to partake in the State’s group benefits purchasing power for health insurance (but had their rates for the same plan jacked up by Legislature and Markell this year causing a sharp rise in health insurance premiums for employees) and you note a news story about a small select group of state employees receiving raises this budget year knowing the State had to dip into one-time settlement funds to close a budget shortfall, and the overwhelming majority of state employees haven’t seen an increase in years, some pushing close to a decade.

You attempt to engage your legislators in the House (House, as in the purse-strings chamber), including the Majority Leader:

“Good morning, I am reaching out to you because I know you and I want to express my total disgust with the recent article in The News Journal regarding raises for staffers.  Because I question newspaper articles please,

  1. confirm that the facts are correct and
  2. tell me where you stand on this issue and
  3. What if anything is being done about it?

Thank you for your time and I eagerly await your response.

Most sincerely,

Fran

(p.s. I have been out of town recently and have not caught up with the paper…I’m sincerely hoping to see numerous articles from legislators on this topic)”

A great, concise communique that lands its punches squarely on their targets; followed by a response from the Majority Leader:

 “Good morning Fran,

Thank you for reaching out to the members of the General Assembly regarding your “disgust.”  I have to say that I am taken back by your email in the context you choose to address us.

I would like to first ask that your email be addressed to all Leadership in the General Assembly in the House and Senate, Democrat and Republican.  If you read the article, the raises came from all four caucus in the GA.  If you are not aware of the process for staffing it runs through Leadership and not the members of the caucus.  So at this point I would ask that you keep that in mind when addressing members on this email.

I’m sure as an employee of the University of Delaware and a paid consultant to GA facilitating task forces you are aware that the employees in the General Assembly are serving at the pleasure of the caucuses.  This means they do not enjoy the job security that most state employees and University of Delaware have.  During the interview process we remind them of that and they choose to work for our members in a capacity serving the public and their elected official.

I do as ALL members of the General Assembly respect our state employees for they serve our state in many capacities.   We also respect our Universities and colleges by supporting them through funding and benefits.

If you would like more information I would ask that you include Leadership from ALL four caucuses or feel free to pick up the phone and call me directly.  I can be reached at 302-562-6640.”

“…taken back by the context you choose to address us.”?  The context is: she saw an article and wanted confirmation from those involved on accuracy and plans to address it.  What other context can you possibly expect when you’re a legislator and you receive a question about something you were directly involved with?  This context is surprising to a State Rep?  I’ve got a bad feeling about this.

I would like to first ask that your email be addressed to all Leadership in the General Assembly in the House and Senate, Democrat and Republican.

I can help with that, Representative Longhurst.  When cc-ing the Acting University President, just add the addresses of the additional members of the Assembly you feel should be included and click “Send”.  Done.  Totally eliminating the need for the response above and showing initiative on your part.  Onward:

If you read the article, the raises came from all four caucus in the GA.

Ah the classic “THEY did it too!!!” which invokes one of my favorite reprimands of all time: “If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?”

If you are not aware of the process for staffing it runs through Leadership and not the members of the caucus.  So at this point I would ask that you keep that in mind when addressing members on this email.

“runs through Leadership.”  …“Leadership”.  Hold on a sec:

majorityleader

Right!  She’s part of the leadership in the House.  She feels unfairly singled out, maybe even offended. If you read the initial email a personal acquaintance and working relationship are implied, this might have bearing on the singling out.  Also it might possibly be due to her role as Majority Leader.

I’m sure as an employee of the University of Delaware and a paid consultant to GA facilitating task forces you are aware that the employees in the General Assembly are serving at the pleasure of the caucuses.

“I’m telling mommy!!!” I can do that too: As an employee of the residents of Bear, she should be aware that she serves at the pleasure of us.  Well, in an ideal world that would be true.  But we know in Bear if you have D behind your name and get elected once; you’re elected for life until the next redistricting.

This means they do not enjoy the job security that most state employees and University of Delaware have. During the interview process we remind them of that and they choose to work for our members in a capacity serving the public and their elected official.

Here’s where I think Rep. Longhurst really loses track of herself. A component of public service is responding to concerns and inquiries from the public in a respectful, informative, and productive manner even if the inquiries are not made in those manners.  Chiding someone for perceived tone in an email is none of the above.  Copying the person’s boss’ boss on the response in which you do your chiding is most unprofessional.

Proceeding to seek “clarification” from a lobbyist about the source of a statement someone on “his” payroll made is straight up spiteful and embarrassing.  Longhurst knew it wasn’t a university-wide position.  I graduated in 2004 from UD and nothing from them was or is ever that informal, brief, and to the point.  The initial email even used singular pronouns indicative of a correspondence from an individual.  I’ve got a word to describe this that starts with “bull” but doesn’t end in ‘y’. Imagine if this came from a student’s @udel.edu address, how would Longhurst react then? CC the kid’s RA?

She is my State Rep, although in my attempts to communicate with her over the years I’ve never had a response.  Not even a canned one.  So I use the term “representative” very loosely.

Anecdote time:  A few years ago some housing units across the street from me burned down because a tenant flicked a lit cigarette out the back window during the middle of a drought igniting the dead grass, dried undergrowth in the wetlands, and the decks. The fire obliterated 2 units and damaged 3.  In the preceding months and years, there were multiple incidents of gunfire, home invasion, homicide, and drug activity in our neighborhood.  After several of them, we asked Rep. Longhurst to meet to discuss our concerns, what to do to improve our community, and how she as a State leader might help.  Requests went unanswered except for one after the fire in which she agreed to meet us in front of the burned out homes.  On the day of, it was rainy and cold.  So she cancelled the meeting and did not respond to requests to reschedule.  How can I cc everyone in Bear about this?

Petulance and leadership should not go hand in hand.  Unfortunately when it comes to our State leaders, they often do.  This is just the most recent example and kudos for Reps. Kowalko and Williams for addressing this situation appropriately.  “..this is just a symptom of a larger illness in our caucus; this is a reflection of every one of us.” Williams wrote.  There’s a bit of leadership for you.  Something, something “hold our elected officials to a higher standard”.  How about we do that next November?

P.S.: How not to sound petulant:

“Hi Fran, thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns over the selective pay raise process that occurred with the new state budget.  I share your concerns with the overall trend of decreasing compensation for our dedicated state employees and in the coming legislative session will be seeking methods to reverse that trend not only for state workers but for state services, like education, as well.  I would welcome your additional thoughts on this matter and on our budget as a whole as Delaware is facing a tough financial year ahead.”

P.P.S.:  Emails between state legislators and citizens are not considered public. Publicly funded State email system, publicly funded elected official, private email. …Okay.

Guest Post: Child Abusers Astroturfing

One of our readers, Brooke Bovard, has written this guest post.

Delaware, as a ‘blue’ state, and without much to steal, is new to the game of being targeted by the Right. Sure, they tried to foist Christine O’Donnell on us, but they can’t be trying too hard, right?

Sadly, wrong. A case in point is action on SB 234, which deals with the presumably bipartisan priority of preventing child abuse. But, not so fast, L’il Pilgrim. According to the email alert sent out by the Home School Legal Defense Association:

Anti-Spanking Bill Passes House Committee

If SB 234 is passed into law, parents could go to jail for disciplining their children.

Dee Black answers questions and provides legal assistance for members in Delaware. He and his wife homeschooled all four of their children.

Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:

Bad news! Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee approved Senate Bill 234 by a unanimous vote of 7–0. It now goes to the full House of Representatives, which will vote on it either today, tomorrow, or Saturday. Your calls and emails are needed to convince members of the House that Delaware citizens do not want to make it a crime for parents to spank their own children.

Senate Bill 234, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Patricia M. Blevins (District 7), creates a definition of the term “physical injury” in the child abuse and neglect laws to include “pain.” Currently the law permits a parent to use force to punish a child for misconduct, but it prohibits any act that is likely to cause or does cause physical injury. By defining “physical injury” to include the infliction of pain on a child, spanking would become a crime in Delaware punishable by imprisonment for up to two years.

It has a sample letter to please call or email your rep, and another “action item” to forward this to every family you know who is not already on the HSLDA list.

Anyone want to make some calls on the other side?

Unshiny Objects

We’ve had enough of the shiny objects that take our eyes off the ball of governing locally and statewide.  Christine O’Donnell has had a house dropped on her, Sharon Angle has run away from the press for good and Charlie Crist is cleaning out his desk.  I grant you that the Protack sockpuppetry and the general circular firing squad that is the Delaware Republican party are fun to watch, but let’s talk about real goals.

What do you want to see from the Delaware Legislature this year?  More open government?  Fix the formula for the voluntary assessment by developers?  Limit the autonomy of the Insurance Commissioner?

Let’s get some ideas out there, we know that they read the blog.  Now that we own the House, the Senate and the Governor’s mansion, what can we do to fix what ails the state?

A Path to Good High-Paying Jobs in Delaware

You may not know it, but there is a jobs bill in Dover that can’t seem to get a vote.  Speaker Gilligan has been dragging his feet on putting the jobs bill on the floor.  I am a little amazed by that fact, since it is a jobs bill that doesn’t even have a fiscal note attached.  It’s a jobs bill that will mean work for union workers.  It will mean work for small businesses up and down the state.  And it is a jobs bill that sells a renewable resource.

We need to vote on the film bill (H.B.490) to create jobs this year and for years to come.

Tom Kovach introduced the bill this year, but it is sponsored by 21 other Reps and two senators.  Here’s how the program would work:

A film would come to Delaware and say, “ I have a film that I am making.  I have secured the distribution rights for the film, once I make it.  I have the actors signed on for the film.  I have 70% of the money to make the film. All I need is the other 30% to get over the hump”

Now, I know what you are thinking… No freaking way am I paying for 30% of Ishtar! I agree.  Instead, we cosign for a loan on the 30% (must not exceed $5M).  In exchange:

  • They must film 80% of the movie in Delaware
  • They must be a Delaware corporation
  • The employees must pay Delaware taxes
  • They must be insured to pay back the loan, in case of a tragedy (A Tom Cruise thresher accident isn’t out of the realm of possibility)
  • The loan must be the first thing paid back (before the other 70% investors)
  • Money must be set aside to pay back the interest on the loan (remember, the loan is made by a bank, not the State) for 3 years

Meanwhile, the films are employing caterers, security, local crews, renting facilities, paying tolls, buying fuel, and a dozen other things that films need every day.  They are also paying the crew, who are eating, drinking and being merry when they’re between shooting days.  Not to mention that we can enhance tourism in Delaware once there is a film depiction of the beautiful beaches and farms in Sussex, the awesome gardens and homes of New Castle County and the huge strips of asphalt that define Kent County.

This just needs to get done.  Last year, my sources tell me that Alan Levin pulled the plug on it at the last minute, no doubt because of a failed investment in Waterworld in the 90’s.  I was unable to reach my DEDO contact for comment on where Levin is this year, but he seems to be softening (must resist…).  The Governors office could have the bill on the agenda with a nod of the head, but they have been preoccupied with budget wrangling and other bills of interest.  But this cannot languish any longer.

Besides, this may be my opportunity to leverage my high school acting experience into a lucrative career as a professional extra.

Questions for the Insurance Commissioner

Next week, a joint committee will be holding a hearing with the Insurance Commissioner, Karen Weldin Stewart to discuss a BCBS issue and allegations raised by the partisan, Caesar Rodney Institute.  DelawareLiberal may be in attendance at the hearing, but all of the questions will be issued by the members of the committee.

However, I thought it might be informative if we come up with questions that we would like answered.  Hopefully someone will filter these to members of the committee.  I’ll start.

  • You have stated that there were no law firms capable of representing the office of the Insurance Commissioner in a lawsuit that you inherited from your predecessor.  However, the name of the law firm in question, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP is not named as counsel on the Chancery court decision.  The law firm named is a local firm; Richards, Layton and Finger.  What role did Stroock & Stroock & Lavan serve on the case?
  • Your department has made the statement in the past that the OIC is not funded by taxpayer dollars.  While this is technically correct, any monies remaining at the end of the budget year are redirected into the General Fund, reducing taxpayer liabilities.  Do you feel that the OIC should be bound to austerity measures that have been implemented in other parts of state government?

So here’s the ground rules… They have to be real questions.  We can’t ask questions like “is it true that you can’t read or write?” (I am sad that I have to even stipulate that).  They should be pointed and not subject to pontification.  If there are follow-ups, ask them too.  You can even follow up on the questions someone else asked.

Tear it up.

DE Sports and Video Lottery Commission Recommends Against New Casinos

…or — perhaps we should call this Watching the Delaware Legislature Put Their Ninny Hats On. Ginger Gibson at the News Journal documents the atrocities.

This is a completely mind-boggling recommendation by this Commission and flies in the face of the recommendations (and data gathered) by their own commissioned study:

Several lawmakers insisted that any financial harm to the existing racetracks was unacceptable, even if job losses there were compensated for with new jobs at new venues.

“I think there are some things wrong with the study,” said Rep. Clifford “Biff” Lee, R-Laurel, who is a member of the gambling commission.

Five of the six lawmakers who served on the gambling commission voted Tuesday morning to add a contradictory footnote before submitting the study to the Legislature on its first day; Lee, Senate Majority Leader Patricia Blevins, D-Elsmere, Sens. Nancy Cook, D-Kenton, Colin Bonini, R-Dover South, and Rep. Helene Keeley, D-Wilmington West.

Read that again — any financial harm to the existing racetracks was unacceptable.

This is just what Delaware needs — another protect at all costs industry. Wonder where they were when Borders and Barnes and Noble were building like crazy and pushing out independent booksellers? Or do you think that we can get these guys to weigh in on the side of local businesses when the newest Walmart comes up to be built? Probably not, because this Commission has decided that casinos are a Too Big to Fail industry for Delaware.

And even then this doesn’t quite work since adding more casinos definitely adds jobs and adds to the overall financial health of the state’s gambling industry. Any lost jobs by Dover or Harrington are basically a function of how well they can compete and I really do not see why these casinos need the protection of the state if they aren’t ready to be aggressively competitive.

Which brings me to my next point — what is up with the R’s on this committee voting against a Free Market for the gambling industry? Colin Bonini is supposed to be one of these free-market conservatives and here he is voting for protectionism. Wonder when the CRI takes him to task for betraying the cause. Yeah, that was a joke. But still there is a difference between specific business protectionism which is often short sighted and in the long run expensive for taxpayers and creating an atmosphere where an industry is welcome and able to compete. And this protectionism is going to be expensive for Delaware taxpayers. Because the next step — once the MD and PA casinos come on line — is for Dover, Harrington, Delaware Park to start lobbying this Commission and the larger Legislature for special considerations. That will take the form of givebacks on revenue sharing or some special funding to help them get more competitive. And this legislature will be back whining about jobs — jobs they plainly don’t give a damn about right now — to try to get them more money. More money that this vote by this Commission has already told you they will make sure they’ll get — because protected industries get a special place in line for taxpayer funds.

This Commission thinks that you’ll never remember their clear and abundant stupidity today. Voting to protect the currently weak from having to compete with new in-state casinos doesn’t speak well for these currently weak casinos’ capacity to compete with the upcoming out of state ones. So for all of you legislators looking to protect this industry, we are all pretty clear that the State doesn’t have the money to write the check you are writing today. I really do not want to see the State get in the business of propping up businesses that we already know are not going to survive the opening of new venues in Maryland and PA just because everyone involved in this simply could not think about long-term consequences.

Post Your Legislative Wish List Here!

Tomorrow, the Delaware Legislature goes back into session in Dover. Two things seem a good bet — getting a budget this year when there are still revenue shortfalls is going to be brutal and the legislature will continue their dysfunctional behavior to get to that budget. We keep hearing about detailed reviews of state agencies to look for efficiencies or even eliminations. I’m definitely expecting to see that in some detail this year. And I fully expect that repubs will stamp their feet over it all while offering nothing to fix the budget problems.  I’m also curious about the package of reforms that will be proposed to be able to compete for Race for the Top funds.

Use this thread to tell us what your top priorities for the legislature to accomplish this year. On my wish list:

  • Reform redistricting
  • Some consolidation of the 19 school districts
  • Approval of medical marijuana
  • Everytime a repub says cuts aren’t enough, make them say what else they’d cut.  Do not let them get away with the usual handwaving.

Kowalko on TV Tonight

This evening, WHYY debuts their new Delaware-oriented news magazine “First”.  This is apparently a replacement for their daily “news no one watches.”

On the debut episode, John Kowalko is featured to discuss the state budget mess (past, present and future).  Tune in at 10:00 to see what’s happening in Delaware and get some insight from John Kowalko.

What to Expect From Delaware Liberal Tonight

This is the last day of the legislative session in Dover.  Unstable Isotope and I (at a minimum) will be in attendance and passing along reports.  Many of our reports will be available via Twitter (@liberalgeek and @UnstableIsotope), Nemski and DelawareDem will be monitoring the tweets.  El Somnambulo will be listening to the audio stream over the tubes known as the Interwebz and commenting as we go along.  I will try to get a few interviews with the newsmakers and put the videos up in real time.  We will see how that plan pans out.

We intend to connect up with Mike Matthews and possibly RSmitty at Leg Hall.  The show in Dover starts at 4PM, but some of us work, so it may be a little later that we begin coverage.  We probably won’t last the whole night either, as we do have day jobs.

See you tonight.

UPDATE: Sen. Thurman Adams Died of Pancreatic Cancer

Senate President Pro Tem Sen. Thurman Adams died this morning. No other information is available at this time but we will update and promote this post as new information becomes available.

Sincerest condolences to his family.

SECOND UPDATE: The News Journal is reporting that Senator Adams had Pancreatic cancer.

Adams, 80, was admitted to Kent General Hospital on June 15. Doctors confirmed the nature of his illness only shortly before his death, said his daughter, Lynn Kokjohn of Rehoboth Beach. He would have turned 81 on July 25.

“It was very fast,” Kokjohn said. “He went to the governor’s lunch on Tuesday and then the doctor called him because of some blood work and said ‘I don’t like your levels. I want you to get to the hospital.’”

“He was talking yesterday with [grandson] Drew, making sure that certain tributes were ready for the [Delaware State] Fair, for the governor to sign,” Kokjohn said. “He was still working. He was still thinking of all of that.”

Here is local news coverage:
WBOC
WDEL
News Journal

Here is a picture from a feature story the News Journal did last summer on the late Senator.

JFC Says: Pay No Attention to the Little Man Behind the Curtain

If you read this NJ article, you read a bunch of legislators on the JFC who are clearly supportive of HB1 — but not when it comes to them and the workings of the JFC:

JFC co-leaders Sen. Nancy Cook, D-Kenton, and Rep. Dennis P. Williams, D-Wilmington North, said they hope the JFC will continue to be allowed to meet in its private “orientation” sessions even if some version of the open-government House Bill 1 is approved. That would give legislators the same protection as the executive branch, Cook said, noting similar closed-door hearings are held to finalize the governor’s recommended budget. The private meetings allow legislators to meet with staff and advisors behind closed doors to get background information needed to make decisions, she said.

Ever think about why these legislators need the “protection” of working out of the public eye? The folks holding the pursestrings certainly hold alot of power — but in the case of running a government, spending really is policy. Government commitments to support (or not) or fund (or not) certain initiatives, departments, or programs is the real statement of policy — no matter the happy talk that you may encounter in constituent meetings, media interviews, statements from the floor. It is, as it always was, the money that does the talking.

Shielding the JFC’s deliberations from the public just ensures that the public (not the Executive Branch) never sees the final vetting of the policy for the year. Members of the JFC get to make their deals and decisions in private, subject to nothing more than the usual Delaware Way.

Conceding that since HB1 is not yet law, the JFC is certainly within its rights to vote itself rules that close their proceedings to the rest of us. But an endorsement of HB1 is an endorsement of beginning to dismantle the Delaware Way and I think that the JFC — especially now, in the midst of the current budget meltdown — needs to step up, get on its suncreen and learn to live with alot more sunshine. And certainly, the JFC should never be exempt from the HB1 rules and requirements.