Schwartzkopf’s Budget Deal Deplorable. Was It Also Illegal?
I think the answer may well be yes.
But first, let’s talk about how Pistol Pete threw over his own caucus in order to crawl into bed with the Rethugs. According to several Leg Hall sources, Speaker Schwartzkopf had pledged to reconvene with his caucus to try to recalibrate any budget agreement that could impact core D constituencies. Specifically, those who were at risk of losing 10% in public assistance for health care. He did not hold that promised meeting. Instead, he called the Budget Bill up for a vote, which is why so many D progressives voted no. And, yes, those receiving public assistance saw their monthly stipend cut from $90 monthly to $81. Meanwhile, $1.2 mill worth of additional state police coverage to Sussex County and $3 mill of Ag Lands preservation were the booty claimed by the Rethugs and, not coincidentally, by Sussex County’s most powerful legislator, Schwartzkopf. Oh, and the $5 mill that was transferred from the Transportation Trust Fund in the name of ‘reform’, ended up…nope, not telling you yet.
Soon. Have patience. Let me first start with what might appear to be mundane language, but will prove to be real important, IMHO.
“(5) A grant-In-aid is an appropriation of the public money from the General Fund for a public purpose to any county, municipality, corporation, private agency or person.”
Now, you may ask, why am I citing language regarding the Grant-In-Aid bill when we’re talking about deals affecting the budget. The answer is that, for reasons that someone’s gonna have to explain, the additional state police coverage in Sussex County and the $5 mill in DELDOT administrative costs that were transferred out of the Transportation Trust Fund, did not show up in the Budget Bill, they instead showed up on the very last page of the Grants-In-Aid bill. While I’m not a lawyer, state agencies are to be funded in the Budget Bill and, by the highlighted definition of what constitutes a grant-in-aid, cannot be funded in the Grant-In-Aid bill.
It’s obvious what happened here. The deal was cut so late that, rather than either reprint the entire Budget Bill or run a separate piece of legislation, Schwartzkopf and the JFC inserted the language into the GIA. Only problem is that what they did may well be illegal. May I first digress to point out one delicious irony of Schwartzkopf’s negotiating ‘prowess’? The Rethugs howled all year about getting the administrative funding out of the Transportation Trust Fund. They were such sticklers for reform that they immediately signed off on a deal that provides about $5 mill in funds for DELDOT in a bill that does not fund state agencies. There’s also one more reason that Schwartzkopf, JFC and the Rethugs did this: If this funding went into the Budget bill, they would have had to cut even more stuff out of the bill.
Instead, they funded state programs which, according to the Delaware Code, are to be funded in the Budget Bill, not the Grants-In-Aid bill.
Now, here’s the proof. First, here is this year’s Grants-In-Aid Bill.
Now, here are the key excerpts, all of which appear on the very last page of the bill:
Section 36. It is the legislative intent that $8,580,000 in financial settlements, held in appropriation 29626, within Legal, Office of the Attorney General (15-01-01), be allocated in the following manner:
(a) $30,000 to Adult Basic Education;
(b) $350,000 the Paramedic Instructional Program Expansion;
(c) $202,569 for municipal law enforcement email accounts (10-07-02), of which the remaining cost is to remain the responsibility of the municipalities in a pro-rated manner;
(d) $1,797,431 for Emergency Medical Services, Paramedic Program Operations;
(e) $5,000,000 for Contractual – E-ZPass Operations, Department of Transportation, Toll Administration (55-11-60); and
(f) $1,200,000 for Sussex County Police Agreement.
Maybe Matt Denn will explore exactly how this financial settlement money went to fund state operations in a bill that cannot legally fund state operations. I hope he does.
BTW, don’t be fooled by the misleading verbiage of “Sussex County Police Agreement”. These are state cops being paid by state funds to do what Sussex County should do for themselves. And, lest there be any doubt about that, here’s the relevant language:
Section 239. The Department of Safety and Homeland Security is hereby authorized to continue funding its share of the existing 44 patrol officers that have been established through agreements between State Police (45-06-00) and Sussex County Council. In Section 1 of this Act, ASF spending authority has been provided to Department of Safety and Homeland Security, State Police, Patrol (45-06-03) in order to accommodate the match requirements (50/50 match) stipulated by these agreements. In the event that the aforementioned agreements between State Police and Sussex County Council are terminated, this authority shall be deauthorized.
I don’t think they can legally do that.
Before I conclude, just one final word on the machinations of Schwartzkopf. Once again, according to multiple sources, House legislators did not even see the Bond and Grants-In-Aid bills until the time they were called up for votes.
Schwartzkopf screwed his caucus and, more importantly, core Democratic constituencies while preserving all sorts of breaks for Sussex County and for farmers. I’ve generally been agnostic about the guy (some good, some bad), but if I was in that Caucus, I’d want him out of his position. He sold them out. His own caucus can no longer trust him.
Tags: Featured
This guy is a complete disaster.
Holy crap! Great job! I knew there was something shady going on there. Here’s the kicker though, we all know it’s probably against state code, but will anyone do anything about it? Violations of the state code go on all over the place in this state, but is anyone in power ever held accountable? Good lord, we have charter school leaders pilfering the state out of hundreds of thousands, if not millions by the time it all comes out, but the Republicans, Jaques, Sokola and Schwartzkopf would rather listen to the DE Charter Schools Network than our own State Auditor yelling “Danger, Danger!!!!” There are some very crooked legislators in this state, and I can’t wait until they are held accountable.
Actually, I wonder if the AG (who also got screwed in this deal) has the authority to decide whether it is illegal and invalidate it.
I wonder what the implications of that would be…
I would assume if it goes to the Attorney General’s office it would have to go to the new Office of Civil Rights & Public Trust, so as not to cloud that particular issue. Wasn’t that the whole part about the 2nd part of the name in that office, Public Trust, so those conflicts of interest don’t occur?
…..and nothing is probably going to happen unless someone files a formal complaint. Followed by it getting swept under the rug on a technicality. Good catch, but let’s see if it actually goes anywhere or will it be just another day in the Delaware Way?
Sussex does pay money towards state police.
Ironic to demand Sussex pay for it’s own police when we have had two sheriffs that wanted to do just that and were roundly dismissed both here on DL, as well as all over Sussex.
The two sheriffs wanted to give police power to their bleeping constables. Uh, not the same thing.
Uh oh. I think I see how they might have snuck this through and could at least ARGUE that it’s legal. Check out the bill’s title:
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR CERTAIN GRANTS-IN-AID FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2016; SPECIFYING CERTAIN PROCEDURES, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF SUCH FUNDS, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 APPROPRIATIONS ACT.
Got that? They ‘amended’ the appropriations act in the Grant-In-Aid, a bill that the House didn’t even see until it was called up for a vote, meaning they can claim that the scope of the title permits sneaking these appropriations through in Grants-In-Aid.
Also meaning that, at best, what Schwartzkopf and the JFC did was to deliberately mislead the rest of the members of the General Assembly, especially the House, in passing this bill. Members have already pointed out that the ‘ink was still warm’ on the bill when they got it.
Once again, Worst General Assembly Session Ever.
Although I agree with most of what you’re saying, I don’t believe any legislators were victims here. They had an entire session to address this budget issue. Because they were so busy fighting each other they did not do the people’s work. The ones running around blaming everyone else need to look in a mirror.
Legislators proposed a new top rate and a corporate franchise fee increase.
The Speaker refused to even allow votes on those proposals.
Instead, he cut a deal with the Rethugs that was neither Democratic nor democratic.
Really, screw public assistance recipients out of money while making sure that the State foots more of the bill for state cops for Sussex County and farmers receive extortion payments?
The victims are Delawareans who got screwed due to the actions of Pete, the JFC and the Rethugs.
That’s the point that progressives were making. And they were the only ones speaking for those who didn’t have lobbyists or a Sussex County dealmaker in their corner.
But, thank you for parroting what are likely to be Pete’s talking points. Blame the people who dared to speak up. I blame the so-called D’s who screwed the most powerless among us. They knew what they were doing, and did it anyway.
“I can’t even spell gas tax.” Schwartzkopf Jan 2015
This speaker has gone rogue on his own caucus. Death penalty repeal, anyone?
And on a lighter note Red Clay School District………..
Yeah, those former police officers turned constables would make horrible law enforcement officers.
Anyway, if grants in aid in code is “x” how can you pass a grants in aid bill in violation of that bill by simply saying “oh, but this one is only for a year?” Don’t you have to go and change the grant in aid code first? Or is this how Delaware works?
Man El, would hate to see how you react if I wasn’t actually agreeing with you. Jeez.
“The ones running around blaming everyone else need to look in a mirror.”
I’m not sure whom you’re talking about, but some of those blaming others were pushing for more progressive solutions.
“Yeah, those former police officers turned constables would make horrible law enforcement officers.”
If Sussex wants a police force, it can elect a county council that institutes one. The sheriff was exercising a power grab, not trying to form a police force. And I think you’re smart enough to already know that.
There is only one time a conservative has a problem with freedom, sovereignty, self sufficiency and independence, and that is when you have to pay for it yourself.
The first run at the “power grab” was an actual effort to create a police force. So much so that the county council investigated the cost/benefit analysis of State v. County policing. The report revealed that it was more financially beneficial to stay with the State Police deal. Much to the happiness of a) State Police b) Pete S (and every other retired state police officer) and c) checkbook conservatism that doesn’t believe in paying for anything.
Sussex, while captained by a conservative council, floats in a sea of socialism. There are no county services to speak of. And they ones that do exist are heavily subsidized by the state. There are no county roads, parks, law enforcement as well as ambulance/fire services. County Council is basically a homeowners association with sewage districts.
“There are no county services to speak of. And they ones that do exist are heavily subsidized by the state. There are no county roads, parks, law enforcement as well as ambulance/fire services. (The Sussex) County Council is basically a homeowners association with sewage districts.”
So well said. Outside of a few pockets of rationality, it is a blighted and awful place.
On my Kanye West right now… None of them care about minorities or poor people. Those are a core democratic base. All their “progressive” stuff is about charter schools, not about minority communities or the poor. Even their education debate which could have been flipped into a debate about these minority communities effected by “ed reform” and closing the achievement gap, but these conversations were only about teachers and suburban moms and they didn’t even engage the civil rights community to get them on board. Instead, they did like Republicans and, in a very condescending manner, said… “You don’t understand, this is really in your best interest, deep down”.
Don’t try to cloak their message as them fighting against general assistance funding cuts or cuts to housing programs, because those things have been cut regularly for the last 6 years and nobody complained. These “progressives” didn’t start fighting back until the charter vs. union debate. Even when they were holding out their votes on the budget this year, the only things I read them talk about were specific line items impacting charter schools, districts, and R2TT. General assistance was an after thought, and housing programs, and work force training wasn’t even mentioned.
If all of those things effecting charters were amended as they requested, there isn’t a doubt in my mind that every Democrat would have still supported the budget. Check the records on how many of those 6 supported the vote a few years ago to lower the income tax rate? Bennett sponsored a bill this year to cap taxes on Verizon. These are single issue people who only care about charters, not progressives or all democratic constituencies. It should take more than just hating Education Reform to call yourself a progressive. And El, you know how the legislative process works. You see how they marketed HB50?? None of that happened with their bill on tax brackets. Their was no effort behind that. They put it out their to make a statement, not to make it happen. A bill of that significance shouldn’t just be dropped out there toward the end of session, if you are serious about it’s immediate success.
Joe Six Pack, out of anyone in this state, I think I can safely say I “marketed” House Bill 50 because it is something I strongly believe in. To say these people only care about the charter vs. union debate shows you haven’t really been listening. Education is 1/3rd of the budget in this state, so if there is wasteful spending (of which there is a lot), of course it would get a spotlight on it. And no place is more wasteful than charter schools, plain and simple. The system has allowed it to be so. I wouldn’t say the Progressives aren’t out there, they are. All over the place. No one can tackle every issue. Education gets the most sound bites though, so the noise from those matters will be heard much clearer.
This was never anyone saying “This is in your best interest, deep down.” I think anyone who supported HB50 did so with clear research and their own private thoughts. It was really unlike anything else this state has seen in a long time, and I hope more parents really get out there to debate these issues.
I can’t speak for Kowalko’s timing on the income tax brackets, but it was about time someone got something like that out there. As compared to the other numerous bills that are put out at the end of session and clear through without anyone batting an eye… The power play in Dover is in full swing, and everyone is looking out for their own causes. 2016 is going to be VERY interesting…
Kevin, I didn’t mean for that to seem like a knock at you or the idea of challenging Charters. I think you did a great job and I support all of the positions of the 6 on charter funding. I just want the same fire to be in our representatives when cuts effect minorities and the poor as it is when they effect unions and other interests. It is not. General Assistance for the poor has fallen nearly every year since like 2010, when the poor needed the most help. As a response to the foreclosure crisis, the last two years we have cut things like funding for free housing counseling targeted to poorer districts. And no Democrats fights back. However, they fight to keep funding private school transportation. We need to judge these “progressives” on more than what the issue of the day is.
ES, you have been around long enough to know that the Title of this year’s GIA bill is exactly the same as it always is. Look up the grant in aid bills for 147th and 146th sessions. They always use the grant in aid epilogue if they have to make changes to the budget. People can agree or disagree with what was done, but the Title of the GIA bill wasn’t some new sneaky way to get it done.
It WAS a sneaky way to get it done.
Nobody’s gonna vote against senior centers, non-profit agencies that do good things, or fire companies.
Put crap in that bill and DARE anyone to vote against it. Oh, and bring the bill up for a vote when nobody has had a chance to read it, meaning that the only people who know everything that’s in it are those who wrote the damn thing, including the last minute additions.
If that’s not sneaky, don’t know what is.
Joe 6
I have to respond to your comment which is based on an ignorance of the facts that you are either blissfully or deliberately unaware of. The group of Dems that voted against the budget made no demands regarding charters in our final desperate attempt to reason with the caucus and JFC leadership. You are completely in error to suggest that our efforts were concentrated on charters and charter funding and you insult, (via your ignorance of any of the dialogue that took place), those six of us who not only claim to but actually do care about the needy and desperate. You have no right to echo whatever false narrative your handlers and contacts have filled your head with while ignoring the honest effort that has and continues to be made on behalf of equal and fair government. Since you suggest/insist that we progressives are not honestly engaged in protecting those people in need then I must recount an actual occurrence not one dreamed up in the fertile imagination of those who would defend this poorly considered budget.
About four years ago when Sen. Cook and Rep. Dennis P. Williams were co-chairs of the Joint Finance Committee I attended many of the JFC meetings. When DHSS was presenting their proposal to JFC they asked to be able to impose a co-pay fee for Medicaid recipients (for doctors’ visits) and to cut the “General Assistance” stipend similarly to what this budget does. I asked for and received permission to testify and pointed out the significance of imposing an often unaffordable fee for routine doctors’ visits since it could discourage the preventative advantage of routine visits and lead to the much more expensive “emergency room” treatment. I also argued against the punishment that would be imposed by reducing the general assistance stipend since some of that pittance is used by those recipients to travel to a soup kitchen or an overnight shelter, (or heaven forbid buy a tube of toothpaste). Both of my arguments succeeded and the money was restored after serious dialogue and consideration by the JFC chairs and members, unlike the close-mindedness of this years budget writers and leadership. This illustrates the willingness of the progressive six to truly and honestly give a damn about people and your attempts to falsely malign our agendas and distort the reality of our efforts is insulting. Your stereotyping of really, really good people with exemplarily moral consciences to try to distract from actual events and facts insults these people and shows a shallowness of thought that seems to be scripted to distract from actual events. You owe these five, (I personally do not need your apology even if offered), champions of progressivism an apology and only hope that someday you can have the privilege of helping others.
Representative John Kowalko 25th District
More facts available if you wish to contact me after this Sunday
Rep. John Kowalko
As we discussed last night, TANF eligibility requires dependent children. GA recipients are encouraged to apply for federal Social Security benefits, some get GA while they wait on a decision and others are denied. SSI does not require a minimum number of quarters worked but often people’s applications are denied if the federal agency determines the applicant can still work or that the medical condition is not severe enough (it is not expected to last 12 months or result in death). The individual only has to be unable to work to receive GA.
In very broad strokes, our GA recipients are very indigent, with no income or resources. They are often have a disability such that they are not able to work but which is not severe enough to qualify for Social Security Disability or SSI. Or, the disability could have not been diagnosed or treated with enough regularity that sufficient medical documentation exists to determine that the individual meets the SSI criteria. Based purely on observation, we seem to frequently see older, single men who are homeless receiving the GA benefit.
Below is the GA eligibility. It is in the section of regulations which also cover the TANF program. http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title16/Department%20of%20Health%20and%20Social%20Services/Division%20of%20Social%20Services/Delaware%20Social%20Services%20Manual/3000.shtml
3018.1 GA and SSI Recipients
An SSI recipient cannot receive GA payments for himself while receiving SSI, but may be a payee for a GA grant for others. The SSI recipient’s income and resources are not considered available to meet the needs of any other person in the household.
3019 Definitions of Unemployable
An adult is unemployable and therefore technically eligible for GA when the adult is:
1. Ill or incapacitated, and unable to perform work activities. The nature of the individual’s health problem, its expected duration, and the individual’s inability to perform work activities must be verified in the case record. The eligibility of temporarily incapacitated persons must be redetermined at the end of the period of incapacity specified by the physician.
Note: GA may be authorized or continued for a period not to exceed 90 days to an incapacitated person who is hospitalized.
An individual whose incapacity is expected to last more than 12 months is referred to the Social Security Administration.
2. For a period not to exceed two (2) months, a person whose SSI disability or SSA disability benefits have ended and who is appealing the decision. Verification of the appeal to the SSA is required. The individual’s eligibility must be redetermined at the end of the two‑ month period. GA benefits can continue only if another condition of unemployability is established.
3. Needed at home to care for another household member who is ill or incapacitated. Verification that another person is needed at home to care for the incapacitated individual is required.
4. Needed at home to care for a child under age six because there is no other person able to care for the child. The child’s age and presence in the home must be verified.
5. Age 55 or over. Age must be verified.
6. For a period not to exceed two years, a high school student who attends school at least 15 hours per week and whose educational needs render him/her unavailable for regular employment. The individual must be able to complete his/her schooling within two years of the application filing date. Students must maintain satisfactory school attendance while receiving General Assistance. School enrollment, attendance, and the anticipated date of graduation must be verified. High school status also includes students enrolled in a high school equivalency program.
Note: Individuals may receive GA based on school attendance for a period not to exceed two years. The two‑ year period begins with the original date of eligibility. GA benefits will terminate at the end of two years even if schooling has not been completed.
Married or unmarried couples who have no children living with them must both be unemployable as explained above in order for both partners to be included in the assistance unit.
These guys know who pay the bills and these folks won’t tolerate higher taxes. It’s time for the budgets to match whats being taken in. Yes, cuts are needed to programs. I only see illegals cutting my lawn and doing other low level jobs around north wilmington. Time for the for folks collecting to take on these jobs…
How do you know they’re illegals Tom?
Was there any actual legislation drafted and put forth for increasing revenues, other than the DMV fees? I know it was discussed in private, but did anyone in the house or senate actually go out on that limb?
HB181 was drafted and I think got out of Committee. That would have put a more progressive tax structure in place. I’ve heard from more than one source that there was definitely some R interest in this one, as it is claimed that the taxes on most of the lower brackets would decrease. Haven’t checked that claim, though.
181, Kowalko sponsored, introduced and passed out of Revenue and Finance committee three weeks before session ended, not placed on agenda by Speaker for a vote.
HB 196, also sponsored by Kowalko, also came out of this committee with all Rs on committee voting to release and one or two Ds voting against. The bill seemed to have bipartisan support but was also refused placement on the agenda for a floor vote despite multiple requests by several caucus members.
Rep. John Kowalko
Yes, these two bills were not only introduced, but cleared the House Revenue & Finance Committee:
http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis148.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+181/$file/legis.html?open
http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis148.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+196/$file/legis.html?open
Schwartzkopf refused to put either on the agenda, leaving him in a position where all he could do was cave on R demands rather than requiring some progressive tax reforms as part of the final deal. Once he decided that he’d rather cave to Rethugs rather than address the concerns of his own caucus, that is.
In addition, there was a bill introduced very late during the last day of session that would increase corporate franchise fees:
http://www.legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis148.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+216/$file/legis.html?open
That last one could well resurface in January.
All this talk about progressive tax structures makes me feel ill. The only way out of this mess is to cut spending and dump giveaways and reduce taxes. Enough spending money we do not have.
Good lord. Tom Kline, you have to try a little harder with these comments. You are lazier than the Delaware Gen Assembly.
Name some cuts you want to make, or point out some group that needs a tax cut. Be more specific, or shut the fuck up.
Joe 6, While I get the anger for the wanton disregard for the communities in the most need. I really wouldn’t attack the those six legislators. They took a stand. I give them credit. Personally, I think everyone sucks, they probably suck slightly less than others though. Your concerns are sound, but your targets are off.
I think you ALL have missed the point here
there is another FAR bigger issue
using the national mortgage settlement money for a purpose that it was not intended for may not be legal either
see below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/business/california-sued-over-diversion-of-money-from-national-mortgage-settlement.html?_r=0
Aoine: I would love, LOVE, to see this challenged in court. However, unless someone makes that challenge, and it’s not likely to be the AG, these fiscal shenanigans will stand.
If someone DOES challenge it, and it would likely have to be someone or an organization impacted by the misuse of these funds, I’ll be rooting for them.
Thanks, Aoine. You make a real good point. Hope someone follows through.