Did Tony DeLuca Resign From the State Senate And Not Even Know It?
I believe that the answer is yes.
I believe that legal precedent established in this state also says yes.
I believe that, according to law, Tony DeLuca is illegally serving as President Pro-Tempore of the Delaware State Senate and illegally serving as a member of the Delaware State Senate.
I shall now proceed to explain to you why I believe this to be true.
First, the Cliff’s Notes Version. The Delaware Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that a public officer of the state may either serve in a position that makes the laws, or a position that enforces the laws. You can’t do both. Tony DeLuca does both, and he can’t do that.
In the same opinion, the Supreme Court held that, when one accepts the second position that violates the separation of powers, they will have effectively resigned their first position. In other words, Tony DeLuca effectively resigned his Senatorial office when he took a job enforcing labor law. Except he didn’t.
OK, on to the very important legalese. It may appear daunting, but it seems crystal-clear to me.
On October 28, 1998, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion that held that:
In accordance with John Dickinson’s formulation, Delaware has always separated its powers of government by keeping them both “distinct in department” and “distinct in office.” The Delaware Constitution of 1897 provides for exclusive action of each branch within its own sphere. Laws are to be enacted by the legislative branch (Article II), enforced by the executive branch (Article III), and construed by the judicial branch (Article IV). The prohibition against dual officeholding in the second clause of Article II, § 14, is intended to maintain that tripartite balance of power among the branches of government by precluding more than one of those separate sovereign functions to be performed by the same person.
In other words, as I read the opinion, you can’t simultaneously be someone who makes the laws and someone charged with enforcing the laws. Tony DeLuca does both. But more about him later.
This opinion was rendered at the request of then-Governor Tom Carper. The issue at the time was that a state policeman named Douglas Salter, active on the force at that time, was seeking election to the state legislature. From the Court’s opinion comes this framing of the question:
The reason for this request is the candidacy of Trooper Douglas Salter for the Delaware House of Representatives, Seventeenth District. If the above question is answered in the affirmative, Trooper Salter’s success in the coming election and acceptance of the Office of State Representative would act as a “resignation or renunciation” of his State Trooper appointment. See Opinion of the Justices, Del.Supr., 647 A.2d 1104, 1104 (1994) (quoting State ex rel. Biggs v. Corley, Del.Supr., 172 A. 415, 419-20 (1934)). An opinion of the Justices addressing whether it is incompatible for an active police officer with the Delaware State Police to serve simultaneously as an elected Representative in the Delaware General Assembly would give much needed guidance on this important constitutional issue which affects two branches of government.
The court struggled with the issue:
This Court has recognized the general legal principle “that where the holder of an office accepts another incompatible office, the acceptance of the second office operates as a resignation or renunciation of the first office as fully and effectually as though the relinquishment of the first office had been an intentional and voluntary act.” This principle of law applies where the incompatibility is declared by constitutional provisions such as Article II, § 14, and Article III, § 11, of the Delaware Constitution. Moreover, this Court has held that “when the resignation has become effective by the acceptance of the incompatible office, a resignation of the second office does not revive or restore the right to hold the first office which has thus been abandoned or resigned.”
I’m deliberately boldfacing these phrases for later discussion. BTW, the Court appointed pro bono counsel to argue each side of the question. In an interesting (at least to me) historical footnote, Widener Law School Dean Lawrence Hamermesh and a fresh-scrubbed cherub-faced barrister by the name of Matt Denn argued the affirmative side of the question.
The justices then considered the applicable constitutional provisions. I find this one to be quite compelling:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he shall have been elected, be appointed to any civil office under this State which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased during such time.
Please help me here. Wasn’t Tony DeLuca’s position created specifically for Tony DeLuca? Didn’t Minner/Brainard/Sharp/DeLuca create this new position specifically to get around any possible Hatch Act violations that might have interfered with DeLuca’s ascension to the job? I’m pretty damn sure they did. But more on that later.
The Court then carefully considered what exactly constitutes a public office. They concluded:
There is no single definition of “public officer,” but there are certain characteristics, including: (1) the exercise of some portion of the State’s sovereign power, (2) tenure in office, (3) fees and emoluments, and (4) oaths of office. We should add to this list a fifth characteristic: The powers and duties of position are conferred and defined by law.
One of these characteristics stands out above the others: the exercise of some portion of the State sovereign power. In our view, that exercise must have some element of independence as well. That is, the person must have an independent governmental duty that he or she is required to undertake by virtue of his position, not solely as an instrumentality directed by another.
In other words, in determining whether Trooper Salter’s position conflicted with state law, the boldfaced elements, among others, were the elements that they would consider. Is all this starting to come together now?
The Court ultimately held that:
Because Sergeant Salter is a public officer of the executive branch, there is a separation of powers problem, and allowing him to maintain both public offices would work an impermissible commingling of two separate branches of State government…
Most important, Sergeant Salter’s duties with the Delaware State Police require him to perform the sovereign function assigned to the executive branch of enforcing the laws of the State of Delaware. If he were simultaneously to occupy a seat in the Delaware House of Representatives, he would be called upon to perform the sovereign function assigned to the legislative branch of enacting the laws of the State of Delaware. The combination of those two sovereign functions in one person is antithetical to separation of powers between the three branches of government in Article II, III, and IV of the Delaware Constitution of 1897. Our analysis reflects that is exactly why Article II, § 14, of the Delaware Constitution has always prohibited such dual office holding.
The Justices are of the unanimous view that the question you presented to each of us must be answered in the affirmative.
Now, I’m not a lawyer. And I know that it’s a lawyer’s job to find grey areas where none are apparent. But let’s apply this opinion which, to my knowledge, is the most recent and most comprehensive opinion on this matter. Unless I’ve completely taken leave of my faculties, the conclusion is incontrovertible: It is impermissible for one person to hold two public offices when one office makes the laws and the other office enforces said laws. That, my friends, is exactly what Tony DeLuca does. No stretch of reality is required to make that connection. He is simultaneously the President Pro-Tempore of the Delaware State Senate and the Director of Labor Law Enforcement at the Department of Labor.
If anything, Trooper Salter had a better case than DeLuca does, as Salter was working in the Planning Office for the State Police, but the Supreme Court held that he still met the ‘public officer’ criteria that would disqualify him from holding both offices simultaneously.
So, not only is DeLuca illegally holding his two jobs, in violation of this opinion, he is specifically illegally serving in the Delaware State Senate. Why do I say that? Here’s the applicable passage of the decision:
This Court has recognized the general legal principle “that where the holder of an office accepts another incompatible office, the acceptance of the second office operates as a resignation or renunciation of the first office as fully and effectually as though the relinquishment of the first office had been an intentional and voluntary act.” This principle of law applies where the incompatibility is declared by constitutional provisions such as Article II, § 14, and Article III, § 11, of the Delaware Constitution. Moreover, this Court has held that “when the resignation has become effective by the acceptance of the incompatible office, a resignation of the second office does not revive or restore the right to hold the first office which has thus been abandoned or resigned.”
DeLuca was already a state senator at the time he ‘was hired’ to be the State Director of Labor Law Enforcement. The opinion quoted above makes clear that, in the eyes of the law, DeLuca’s acceptance of his second job was the same as a resignation or renunciation of his Senate job. Were DeLuca now to decide that he’d rather be a senator than the Labor Law Enforcement director for the state, the court makes clear that he doesn’t have the right to do that.
Why then, you may ask, is DeLuca still where he is? IMHO, the answer is that no one with standing has yet brought this issue before the court. The original opinion was just that, an opinion. Then-Gov. Carper and Trooper Salter had sought the opinion before it became a legal issue. Minner/Brainard/Sharp/DeLuca did not seek such an opinion. No surprise there. That, however, does not render the unconstitutionality of what DeLuca is doing as moot, nor does it provide him any legal fig leaf.
While anyone who believes that they have standing could bring the case, and DeLuca has made legions of enemies in both of his ‘public officer’ positions, I believe that the ideal person to do so would be Attorney General Beau Biden. As a sworn officer both of the court and of the State of Delaware, he has an obligation to enforce the laws, beginning with Delaware’s State Constitution. I know that DeLuca is powerful, but he should not be above the law. Which is where he’s placed himself by violating the State Constitution.
I firmly believe that, once someone with standing brings this to the Court’s attention, Tony DeLuca’s de-facto resignation will take effect. Don’t think that Chris Tigani’s springing for the beer for that celebration…
Tags: Tony DeLuca; Matt Denn; Tom Carper; Beau Biden; Steve Tanzer; El Somnambulo; Lawrence Hamermesh;
well done!
but nothing will come of this. sorry. the cynicism is rooted too deeply.
Why? Someone merely needs to accept his resignation. Then Deluca can appeal, and the decision on whether to fight this out in court would be pushed up to the Director of Labor Law Enforcement at the Department of Labor.
Sure hope you’re wrong, Phil. If nothing comes of this, then what is the point of blogging?
… and Tony DeLuca vanished in a puff of logic.
I went looking for a description of the Director’s job duties and Department responsibilities, and wow, the Department of Labor Law Enforcement has a really crappy web page. Here it is in its entirety – a single sentence:
Very well written and informative but who is going to demand that the law be enforced
Phil, I understand the cynicism, but people used to tell me the same thing about open government. It took many years, but we are making progress on that front that exceeds what everyone thought was possible 20 years ago.
If you look at the part of the opinion that starts with the John Dickinson quote, it seems to me that it would rule out ANY service in the executive branch while in the legislature. That has the effect of doing what many of us have discussed.
The best part about this theory, if it prevails, is that it can’t be fixed by resigning the DOL job.
When I first read this post in the drafting phase, and then I read the opinion of the Supreme Court, I thought to myself, well this is so clear but why hasn’t this issue regarding Deluca been raised before? Did we miss another subsequent opinion from the Court distinquishing the office of labor enforcement from the reach of the 1998 opinion? I searched and found nothing to that affect.
So now what has to be done is the Attorney General or someone with standing needs to go to Court.
I’m serious about someone merely accepting his resignation as a starting point. That puts the onus on DeLuca to bring it to a court.
I like the idea too, but who would that be? Does that put Matt Denn as President of the Senate on the hot seat, with an unopened resignation lying on his desk? Can we let a week go by without an unlikely theory about Matt Denn?
The only two people who could “accept” his resignation would be Lt. Governor Denn in his role as President of the Senate and Governor Markell.
I don’t think any Delaware Democrat would initiate this, let alone the top two elected officials. Does the Republican caucus have standing to take it to a court, with or without Beau?
So to sum up, for something to happen on this;
-Matt Denn would have to accept the phantom resignation,
-Jack Markell would have to accept the phantom resignation, or
-Beau Biden would have to take this to a court.
I like all of those guys, each a fine Democrat. I don’t see any of that happening though.
i guess its too much to assume ANY resident of delaware has standing?
Didn’t the AG’s office, or someone, look at this issue recently when the question of DeLuca’s time cards was raised, and somehow conclude that DeLuca is not in violation of the constitutional prohibition? I could be wrong, but I seem to recall a very cursory conclusion that there was no violation by the AG’s office.
I think, though, that a resident of the district could bring an action in court, and believe that the resident would be successful.
I thought I just posted a comment. Where’d it go?
I’ll edit this one instead – no citizens often don’t have standing as in the case of Flaherty and Reeder vs Tom Wagner and Nancy Wagner and the alleged false conclusions of his double-dipping audit of her hours between the GA and Dover HS. Judge denied. The AG has also denied giving opionon or taking action on basis of standing.
Why couldn’t any citizen of Delaware file suit over this?
First of all, a Supreme Court opinion supersedes an AG’s opinion. Second, any opinions were apparently written by a Deputy AG who, at the time was working at the DOL. There appear to be significant questions as to whether her bosses in the AG’s office were aware of these opinions.
She is no longer there, and, last week, we got a strong opinion from the AG’s office regarding documents that DeLuca had kept from the public.
One has to wonder just how long the Governor’s office will countenance a Department of Labor seemingly being run by a rogue operative. I think they would do well to seek a legal opinion about DeLuca’s status before all Hell breaks loose. Which I think it will.
rogue operative… tee hee.
I’ll bet someone $10,000 of Romney’s money that if DeLuca is forced to comment on this, he’ll say.. “This was looked at when the issue of my time cards was raised, and there was no violation. And also, f*ck El Sonambulo, that guy is getting on my nerves.”
“This was looked at when the issue of my time cards was raised”
Actually, the issue before the AG was a FOIA appeal about whether to release the timecard information or not. I don’t think the conflict in the job statuses came up.
The truth isn’t going to stop him from using the prior inquiry as a dodge.
El Som is rockin’ de house!
This deserves mainstream coverage. Are you listening News Journal?
OK, let’s say El Som is right and Tony resigns. I’ll wager some Romney money that in less than a month Lonnie and Brainard will find him a job at DelTech. (not as much clout, but no need for El Som to kick him around anymore.)
As long as he’s out of the State Senate, I don’t care where he ends up.
Ron Williams outed this situation in his column over a year ago. Why has noone taken a legal challenge. The Rebublican Party{don’t be naive enough to believe it wasw just Bonnini) kept tony in power in exchange reappotionment treatment for the Katz, Sokala and Cloutier senate seats. You can understand the republicans being corrupted. Why haven’t Peterson or Katz or Sokola filed a lega chaqllenge. Also you would think the governor(it is rumored that a high level meeting is taking place in the Governor’s office today) or the attorney general would want the issue clarified. The worst of all isthe failure of the news room of the News Journal
would you vote for a moderate Republican over Tony in a general, X?
Someone raised whether the Republican Party had standing to legally raise the isuue. As I recall in the Salter case the Democratic State Commitee filed the suit. The Republicansd have standing, what prevents them is they have been morally corrupted by their deal with the devil
You know who has standing?
*grits teeth*
DeLuca’s opponent.
Comment by Sisyphus:
“Why haven’t Peterson or Katz or Sokola filed a lega chaqllenge…”
Because they don’t have standing to do so. Markell could do something….
I checked w/ someone who knows. The AGs decision in the timesheet case did not address Salter.
Here’s the actual opinion:
http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/office/opinions/2011/11-IB05.pdf
just curious–as senators who are affected by the actions of the Senator Pro Tempore, why don’t all of the other state senators (including Katz, Sokola, and Peterson) have standing? They are being directly affected by an individual who they (or at least ElS) can argue has resigned his post as state senator, and thus Senator Pro Tempore.
I don’t know if they have standing or not, but it is too much to ask a fellow Democratic legislator, even given DeLuca’s offenses against some of them.
I hate to be a spoiler here BUT:
the difference between the Salter opinion and the DeLuca situation is that Salter, HIMSELF actually enforced the laws of the State of Delaware (Or could)
whereas DeLuca OVERSEES that office, as the manager – and as far as I know, he himself does not and cannot directly enforce the Law
so the statute was not violated – if I was arguing for DeLuca that would be my approach/argument
@ElSOM -LOVE the way you laid out your argument tho!! well done – big applause -great blogging
@PS – before anyone jumps on me for the above
I DO NOT ENDORSE DELLUCA OR WHAT HE IS DOING!!
its simply an intellectual argument
Well you could make that claim if the name of the office wasn’t The Office of Labor Law Enforcement. That makes your argument a little hard to accept.
Regarding DeLuca being appointed to a new position, he may not have actually been appointed. Most state jobs, except for the very top ones, are merit positions, for which people are hired, not appointed. Appointed people are generally directors and above. They serve at the pleasure of the governor. For example Joe Booth was hired, not appointed to the job at Sussex Tech.
Tony DeLuca may as well resign from both jobs. What exactly has he done for Delaware? In the 12 years in office, has DeLuca done anything to benefit our state? If anybody can tell me anything good about his job performance email me at jternenyi@gmail.com. I will do my best to get back to you in a timely manner.
The AG’s timecard opinion confirms it is a merit job.
@LG – I understand what you are saying
BUT
you missed my point
that being he MANAGES that office
he himself is NOT a labor law officer/enforcement officer
like the Governor may be over the COl of the state police – but Jack is not out pulling people over – he does not have the authority
Jeff Christopher is the only elected officer that thinks he does LOL could not resist
but LG – do you see what I am saying?? see the subtle difference??
Aoine, I think you’re real wrong here. DeLuca is not merely a manager. In fact, he may not ‘manage’ at all. He decides who gets investigated, he decides who will be sanctioned. There are a lot of people out there on both the business and labor sides who can and, I think, will, publicly support me on this.
Take my word on this: DeLuca uses the same bully-boy tactics on those who look cross-eyed him in his job at DOL as he does in the Delaware State Senate.
This is just the beginning. But if it blows up like it well could, you will not believe what will be revealed.
BTW, people in both the AG’s office and the Governor’s office are now aware of just how bad things over in Tiny Tony Town. I don’t think they’re gonna keep quiet much longer.
What would happen if Denn held DeLuca had forfeited his office and unilaterally accepted his resignation? Has Denn, as prez of the senate, commented on this?
I think we’re, uh, getting ahead of ourselves here. If I had to guess, I’d look for the Governor’s office to take the next step. After all, the Department of Labor is an executive branch agency, and DeLuca works for that agency.
For whatever criticism I’ve leveled at the Governor, and I like to think that it’s been constructive criticism, I’ve never doubted that he is a highly-ethical person. I don’t think that this is sitting well with him right now, and his style suggests that he will not be one to let this thing fester.
people in both the AG’s office and the Governor’s office are now aware of just how bad things over in Tiny Tony Town. I don’t think they’re gonna keep quiet much longer.
This is the same AG’s office into which problems vanish quietly and never reappear under the cover of “an ongoing investigation”? Yeah, right. Beau isn’t going to let his people talk.
And this is the same governor who cut a deal with Nancy Cook to let her son keep his job as finance secretary rather than eliminating the department?
I call BS on both. The first rule of Delaware Club: No offending the powerful.
@ELSOM- you know more about what he actually does than I do – so I will defer to your knowledge on that issue
BTW – on the backside of that – I know a litle more than you think about some things
contact me offline – Jason and DELDEM or Cassandra can show you how
you definately want to
This won’t be handled by the Governor. It won’t be handled by the President of the Senate. It won’t be handled by the Attorney General.
One just doesn’t do that to people in one’s family. It may be justifiable, but it’s just creepy. Everyone shys away from people who do things like that…
No, it will take a private citizen to file suit. The others mentioned above will sit back, and as a consensus from the public rises against Tony, they will one by one, climb upon the bandwagon. If Delaware still had an effective opposition party made up of real men and not wimps, they normally would be the ones filing suit, or someone in their ranks, would file it as a private citizen. I think, a Tea Partier out there, could profit handsomely from being known as the person placing this suit in court….
If they were stronger, that’s who should do it.
Well, the Governor or someone had better move on this, or Evan Q. will become known as Delaware’s preeminent good-government reformer, running around talking about “draining the swamp.” Who wants to be responsible for enabling that?
It probably would be better to fix this within the family. I envision DeLuca quietly transitioning to a job at Deltech (or some other agency) while remaining in the Senate. That wouldn’t be right either but it would take the heat off.
One more concern for the governor and the party elders:
If DeLuca is forced out of the Senate, regardless of who does the pushing, a special election for his seat is required. Evan Q. is already campaigning; turnout is traditionally low in special elections, a benefit to the minority party; the D’s candidate would have to overcome ill will generated by Tony’s misconduct. All good reasons for Markell to see if he can let this one play itself out over six months or so and hope, in the meantime, that enough people are watching Tony closely that he doesn’t engage in any further mischief.
Aoine, will do. BTW, I’ve read your posts, and I know you know a lot about a lot. Plus, I generally agree with your perspective. Keep on doin’ what you do.
And, Kavips, I respectfully disagree. While anger mounts towards DeLuca, I think pressure on the Governor and/or AG to act will mount as well.
I could be wrong (I know, based on my past predictions, that defines the term ‘understatement’), but I think this is reaching critical mass and Markell or Biden will have to take the lead here, otherwise risk losing face. From a political perspective, cutting your losses with DeLuca burnishes either or both’s reputation as a reformer. Waiting until the outcry leaves them no choice does not.
It is also in Evan Q’s best interest to let this fester until later in the election year…
I bet DeLuca wins re-election…retires.
Here’s the deal I like: DeLuca transfers to a non-conflicting state job and stays in the Senate, but in exchange he resigns from Senate leadership. I don’t know if that is realistic but I like it.
El, respectful disagreement is good. 🙂
I understand where you are coming from. You are looking for leadership on this issue.
The best leaders, are those who take the followers where they want to go… And are very lucky they make it. (Imagine if the Red Sea had collapsed on Moses instead of Pharaoh’s army?)
It takes time for ones constituents to absorb the details. We who live in the world where a nanosecond is too slow, forget what life is like for 99% of Delaware’s citizens. How many even read blogs? And you broke this story how many hours ago? Point made.
As a group, we’ve been saying the same thing about Republicans for 5 years. It took Occupy to finally get it into the national discussion.
If you want something done in a representative government, you have to help it along…
Evan Q, needs to file suit today.
You know what’s good about this? We’re gonna find out, and I think sooner than later. Puck, sorry, but no way that DeLuca should be allowed to keep two jobs. He’s not dealing from a position of strength any more.
I wouldn’t be surprised (no, I don’t know anything) if talk of an exit strategy has already started…
I’ve always known Markell to be an honest and ethical guy. It’s a key part of his reputation and why even those of us who disagree with him respect him. Markell wants to preserve that, and I believe he is truly offended by L’Affaire(s) DeLuca. Maybe I still place too much faith in elected officials, but I think THIS official is gonna find a resolution quickly.
We need Dover to be reformed. It is to the benefit of Delaware citizens that an honest principled candidate enters office (Evan Queitsch) and the dishonest candidate leaves office (Tony DeLuca). The people in the 11th Senate district has tolerated Mr. DeLuca for 12 years. How has that worked out for anybody? Instead of a dirty politician, lets try to vote in a clean, honest, and strong-willed candidate in Evan Queitsch.
Anybody but DeLuca.
Anybody but Tony DeLuca…or Evan Queitsch.
It’s gonna happen. Trust me.
Just wait awhile and your wishes will be fulfilled.
Markell’s ability to implement his agenda depends very much on a Senate supermajority or at least a majority, and on friendly committee chairs. If I were Markell I’d be very much aggrieved by DeLuca’s redistricting that puts that at risk.
Agree, Puck, especially since strong Markell supporter Dave Sokola was the most-screwed in the process.
It is late in the comment thread, but all the Holiday Inn lawyers should take a look at the opinion in State ex rel. Biggs v. Corley, 172 A.415 (Del. Super. en banc 1934) . That long standing opinion answers the earlier questions whether the Lt. Gov., the Gov., or the courts can declare a vacancy in a legislative seat due to an “implied resignation” because of a legislator’s violation of the incompatibility provisions of Art. II, sec. 14 of the State constitution.
If anyone wants a theory about how to proceed in a lawsuit challenging Sen. DeLuca’s ability to continue to hold his Dept. of Labor position drop me an e-mail at . As the earlier comments highlight, the success in such a law suit turns on: (1) a detailed and nuanced inquiry into whether DeLuca’s day job is an “office” (i.e., has external effects on citizens), even if it is an “inferior” office; (2) whether the Biggs’ opinion that explicitly recognizes bare citizen “standing” to seek judicial intervention for section 14 violations has survived later DE Supreme Ct. “standing” decisions; and (3) whether citizens – and not just the AG – can bring actions to unseat State officers.
Did Gary Meyers intend to omit an email address in that comment?
As we speak Chad Lyingood is carefully copying and pasting the info on here for his next “blockbuster” article in the snooze journal.
After all, that’s where he gets his information. He is no more of a reporter than he is am astronaut.
Aint that right Steve?
Couldn’t be further from the truth, Preston. Were it not for Chad Livengood, most of the traditional Delaware Way corruption would have continued undiscovered. Especially the part relating to Tony DeLuca. And he has a whole lot of information that I could NEVER get on my own. I think he’s a great reporter, and I mean that.
Perhaps you didn’t read my Top 10 Most Valuable Progressives of 2011 list published earlier this week, but Chad was #5, and deserved consideration for #1.
While we may break the occasional story here at DL, we’re bloggers, not reporters. Chad Livengood is the most effective reporter at turning over the rocks hiding the Delaware Way from the public that I’ve seen since forever.
In fact, what’s happening on the DeLuca matter, IMHO, is that it’s reaching critical mass precisely b/c there’s an ‘amplifier’ effect going on for the first time, including Chad, Al Mascitti, people interested in open government, certain public officials, and bloggers.
I may have written this story, but I did not come up with the original source material for it. That, by the way, caused a lot of self-inflicted pressure to make the story as impactful as possible, I didn’t want to let anyone down. The story was also edited to reflect excellent suggestions made by people here at DL, including Delaware Dem and Unstable Isotope.
I would like to see the News-Journal Editorial Board add their voice to this issue, but, until then, Chad Livengood will do just fine.
My point is simple. It takes a lot of cooperation and synergy to go after the ‘bad guys’, and that is happening right now. And that’s where our focus should be.
Preston sounds like one of COD’s teabagging crybabies.
El Somnambulo you are wrong. It is Anybody but DeLuca…or Barack Obama. Do you know anything about Evan Queitsch? Can you tell me with certitude that Evan is wrong. I can tell you with certitude that Tony DeLuca is wrong for the state. I can beyond a shadow of doubt tell you that Evan is the best man for the Delaware Senate. f you want to get into a debate about this, we can.
http://www.whoissenatordeluca.com/
John T, tell ya what I’m gonna do. I’m gonna do you, Evan, and our readers a big favor. Here is Evan Q’s website:
http://www.evanqforde.com/
Read Evan’s mission statement. Other than making common cause on double-dipping DeLuca, dear readers, please let me know which other stands inspire you to send 5 bucks Evan’s way.
I was especially inspired by his declaration of love for Delaware’s “more recent stand as America’s corporate capital”. What progressive couldn’t get behind THAT?
But, YMMV. John, this is what’s known in politics as ‘free media’.
You’re welcome.
El Somnambulo, what does anything you have said have to do with good policy. Isn’t that what is important?
Corporations coming here will bring revenue to Delaware. Aren’t progressives always talking about more revenue? Oh yeah, that means taxes when progressives say it. Seriously, he wants government to be open and transparent. That is something liberals should like since they claim to be for a pure democracy.
John T: Evan Q is a moron. He has said, for example, that teachers should not be allowed to run for office. Proposing to disqualify a group of people from running for office is both dumb and anti-democratic.
Case closed on Evan Q.
John: None of Evan’s other positions fits into a progressive philosophy. This is the wrong place to be trolling for votes, because you won’t find anyone here who agrees with him on much of anything.
As if being one of Christine O’Donnell’s henchman wasn’t enough of a deterrent. Or an admitted Glenn Beck adherent.
It must be a really slow news day to be here debating this guy.
It is pretty slow, actually. I couldn’t even find a fresh outrageous quote from Coons, Carney, or Carper to work with.
Q-ball wants the government to be open and transparent as much as congressional Republicans want to reduce the debt.
anonone – I am not saying whether or not I agree with that position, but it could be a potential conflict of interest. Conservative and progressive views should be kept out of schools. Indoctrination should be kept at a minimum regardless of political ideology.
Geezer – I know that Evan is a conservative. If progressives want the Fairness Doctrine in talk radio, surely they won’t mind a conservative commenting here to ensure fairness. Also I do not see it as trolling if I present a different point of view without being a jerk. Preston on the other hand was trolling. I am presenting my point of view in a respectful manner. He didn’t.
Jason330 – How do you know whether or not Evan is lying. Yes many Republicans have lied about reducing the debt. But then again, President Obama said he would allocate our money to companies based on merit, not cronyism. Most companies that got money were friends of the Obama Administration.
John T, I don’t care whether or not you personally agree with the position. It is a dumb and anti-democratic position, and any person who holds such views does not deserve to be elected to public office. End of story.
BTW, I don’t think anybody minds you commenting here, because having a John T supporting an Evan Q is amusing, if nothing else.
I’m jaded.
anonone – Why do you feel it is a dumb position?
It’s dumb, John, because to think we can EXCLUDE one group of law-abiding public citizens from running for public office is, well, DUMB.
Mike – Very detailed answer. Since I will not get a valid answer, here is Evan’s overall position on ethics in government and I will end my ranting:
Delaware has been plagued by unethical and secretive government. The Delaware Way has ensured civility while preserving a status quo of elites who have determined through back room deals, the laws under which we live. We need legislators in Dover with the common sense and the principled base to stand up to this kind of corruption. I will go to Dover with a solid base of principles and the moral courage to not only remain a TRUE representative of the people who elect me but also to spotlight when I see unethical behavior. I will make sure that General Assembly meetings and
Committee meetings are podcasted online and that simple text copies of legislation accompany bills so that you don’t need a law degree to read them. Additionally, while my opponent has refused to show his timecards for either of his 2 taxpayer funded jobs, I will co-sponsor a bill that prohibits any state employee from holding office and prohibit those who represent agencies that receive state funding from holding positions on committees that dole out that money. We’ve got to make government a true agent of the people once again.
“If progressives want the Fairness Doctrine in talk radio…”
It isn’t on my list of Top 1,000 Things to Do.
“surely they won’t mind a conservative commenting here to ensure fairness.”
Comment away. I was suggesting that you’re not going to convince anyone here to vote for Evan, because except for open government issues, few here would agree with him on anything else.
“Also I do not see it as trolling if I present a different point of view without being a jerk.”
My bad. I meant trolling in the original sense of the word, dragging a line through the water hoping to catch a fish. I agree, you were not trolling in the internet sense.
John T: It is dumb because it is anti-democratic and unfair to deny equal rights to all citizens. Nobody running for office doesn’t have potential conflicts of interest, including your dopey candidate.
It should be pointed out that what I’ve said is that teachers who work in publicly funded schools, thereby find themselves in what amounts to the Executive branch of government, should not be elected legislators in our State government. I don’t think that’s radical at all. It’s common sense. For one thing, teachers would be in the classroom from Jan through June during the legislative calendar and so it’s impractical…and for another, any agency that receives state funding, should not then also be allowed to stack the legislature with their own people. I’m sorry if that upsets progressives but I think it’s rather…well fair. You hold one government paid position…period. Now, if a RETIRED teacher would like to run for office, please, by all means do so. If a private school teacher would like to run and their school is ok with them being out of the classroom during the legislative calendar (not sure many would…but then we all have to work our schedules around our lives or vice versa) then that is the business of the school and those paying the tuition.
Furthermore, until I am elected (God willing…[or Gaia, Allah, Tree, etc. willing if you prefer]) and have an opportunity to display my sincere desire to see government open and transparent and my willingness to act on such desires, I think it’s disingenuous for Jason or anyone else to assume that I don’t want to do what I say I do. But I do understand the skepticism whenever someone seeking public office who may not agree with your own positions (and sometimes even when they do) promises to clean something up. More often than not, politicians only seem to make messes, not clean them up. I think that’s the point though. I’m NOT a politician. I mean in the literal sense, by seeking election for public office I am but I am not someone who simply says something to get elected and will do something else (again, actions will speak louder than words). I say what I mean and mean what I say. I’ve called Republicans (Ernie Lopez, Joe Booth and others) to the carpet for double dipping the same as I have DeLuca, Viola and others on the Dem side. I couldn’t care less about party affiliation, wrong is wrong. We’re not going to agree on everything, I’m in favor of putting people back to work to raise revenues, not taxing the snot out of the folks who have some investment money…I say, make it so attractive for them to invest in putting the rest of the unemployed back to work that they can’t afford to hold it in their pockets…will they achieve and get richer, sure…but the unemployed will be enriched too. With that said, there’s plenty of room for us to come together on things to get Delaware moving in the right direction both ethically and economically.
I’d urge you not to generalize or discriminate based on preconceived ideas about someone. Check it out for yourself.
What you wrote was that teachers shouldn’t be allowed to run for office. Now it sounds like you’re saying that anyone who works for the state shouldn’t be allowed to run for office. Good way to double-down on your radically anti-democratic views.
Oh, and don’t expect people to believe in your ideas of open government after you stood in front of cameras to block them from videoing O’Donnell when she was campaigning.
I simply provided a security escort to a candidate at a town hall forum put on by the group I was a part of. I think that’s more than fair. The camera in question had 2.5 hours to tape the entire meeting with no obstruction.
And yes, let me clarify that State employees should not be allowed to hold elected office AND a job in the executive branch of the government. I’m not sure that’s either radical OR anti-democratic …sounds more like common sense to me…and in fact, it’s in line with the problems that good progressive Democrats like Karen Peterson and El Somnombulo have with Senator DeLuca. In fact, it’s EXACTLY what this piece highlights as a reason for why DeLuca should be legally stripped of his seat.
Maybe you should stick to being Christine O’Donnell’s security escort:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3vSLLEZZrM
Evan, give it up. Chrissie-pooh needs you to guard her bush(es) – I’ve heard that Newt’s been snooping around.
RE: the timesheet issue. Other states have legislation which addresses those who come and go as they please with no accountabilty. It’s basically a criminal “theft of service” charge. Does DE not have this legislation?
Evan, it’s fascinating that you would give private school teachers the right to run for the legislature but not public school teachers. Way to privilege the private sector. If you really want to rid the legislature of conflicts of interest, you would propose making legislators full time employees and prohibit them from working anywhere else–in either the public or private sectors. That and public financing of elections.
Not yet Kathy…but it’s one of my plans 🙂
@Dana the point is that you can’t have feet in two parts of the government…has nothing to do with what job you do. That’s why I don’t find it untoward that a private educator serve in the legislature where as a taxpayer funded public school teacher already has their foot in the executive branch.
As for making the legislature a full time job, they already struggle with ways to justify their time…making them full time would be an even bigger waste of taxpayer dollars (though they already make a decent middle class full time wage for their “part time” salary). If anything, I would like to see the legislature more like that in Texas, where it meets LESS often. But that’s not necessarily something we need to deal with today. At this time, we should be focusing on getting rid of corrupt legislators and double dippers. Then we can have a discussion about where to go next.
Dana – Evan is talking out of his ass, as usual. He’s making things up on the fly. He’s not a viable candidate for anything, much less the State Senate. I guess COD left the sidecar from her broom somewhere, otherwise, he’d be gone.
Because, of course, in the world of silly republicans, it is impossible for any one who works in the private sector to have a conflict of interest. So a private school teacher would not have any interest in passing school vouchers to fund private schools, for example. Or a doctor or a nurse would not have a conflict of interest in health care budget allocations. Or a developer would…well, the list is endless.
Evan, what you don’t get is that everybody who runs for office has potential conflicts of interest, regardless of whether they are in the private sector or public sector. Everyone. I am surprised you haven’t proposed keeping public sector employees from voting.
As I wrote when I first read your comment, proposing that teachers not be allowed to run for office was both dumb and anti-democratic. To say you believe in open government while wanting to close it off to some is nothing but hypocritical.
And, why do republicans hate teachers?
Evan, seriously, what do you hope to accomplish over here, other than to make an otherwise interesting thread unreadable? We’ve read your ‘manifesto’ on your own site, and I think most of us agree that, other than the double-dipping of DeLuca, which we’ve been working on for far longer than you have, your platform is wacky.
Let me ask you this. If DeLuca either resigns or is defeated in a primary, just WTF do you offer the voters in that district?
Never mind, it’s a rhetorical question. The answer is nothing. Why don’tcha try to find people who might believe your ‘manifesto’ rather than wasting time over here?
Didn’t work for Prozac, won’t work for you.
Anonone has it right. To think that private sector employees wouldn’t have conflicts of interest while working in legislature is.simply delusional. Clearly, Evan, you are attempting to increase conflicts of interest for private sector concerns under the guise of eliminating it for public sector concerns. You don’t want to rid government of vested interest. You just want to shift it to your favorite sector. How typically Republican of you.
Allow me to point one thing out. You decry Tony DeLuca. You wail there is no one stepping up to challenge him.
The other party challenges. and you bash him instead of DeLuca… He presents the experience of poring over Tony’s record for a year, and is not given a voice and politely told to move along….
The perception given, is that having a Democrat in power, is more important than having someone helpful….
So, if given a choice, which do you prefer? DeLuca? Or, Evan?
Do you keep the evil that you know, or gamble that no one, even unknown, could be worse?
It appears to me, that giving Evan the opportunity to give and take on this forum, would be invaluable in the effort to show that as citizens, this state prefers quality government, as opposed to party government….
Forget the Delaware Way. It’s dead. This needs to become the era of the Progressive Way… Being progressive, we need to use our noggins….. 🙂
kavips – if the choice was between Tiny Tony and Evan the Goon, I’d go with the Dem. We don’t need anymore RWNJ’s holding office in Delaware, especially one as unqualified as Evan.
Hello-o-o-o. There WILL be a primary challenger to Tony DeLuca, a real GOOD primary challenger to Tony DeLuca. IMHO, all of our electoral energies should be focused on ensuring that this challenger triumphs over Tony DeLuca–if DeLuca is even still a senator by then.
Is Christine O’Donnell’s hired ‘muscle’ really a viable alternative to anyone? No.
Can we please move on? I’m thinking of moving this stuff to a new Evan Queitsch for Senator thread. This thread is supposed to be about getting the legal system and/or the Governor to address DeLuca’s blatant violation of the law. It’s not really about the election. It has been now hijacked by Q and T. Can we just keep this on the QT for now?
It is curious that Evan never actually addressed the substance of this thread…
If you want to talk about double dippers, start talking about Rick Perry – http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_19566535
The Q-ball never addresses anything of substance unless it has mayo, mustard and onions on it.
I read many Evan Q comments on the DP blog. A lot of what he wrote was irrational in my opinion. A man claiming Christian Founders Values with the fangs and venom of an out of control extremist. Then I saw the bodyguard videos, what happens when these little big folks even get a sniff of power -the grandiosity, bullying, physical intimidation, chest puffing, total contempt for all who dare to question, including the Free Press – I don’t usually get wimpy and say “frightening”, but it really bring home the point of how dangerous it would be to put people of such maniacal self-certitude anywhere near positions of power.
@think123,
I would have been more um..politic in how I said it but yeah, I think you nailed it. The bodyguard videos were what really made me say Yikes!
Thinky was actually understating it somewhat.