Supermarket Owner Co-Sponsors Beer/Wine Sales in Supermarkets Bill
Only in Delaware. Imagine the Beast Who Slumber’s surprise when he went looking for more information on HB 193, the bill that would enable supermarkets to sell beer and wine, and he discovered that a prominent grocery store owner who also just happens to be a state legislator is one of its sponsors.
Rep. Gerald W. Hocker (R-Ocean View) who, as you can see, is listed as one of the co-sponsors, owns and operates two grocery stores in Delaware, Hocker’s in Clarksville, and G & E in Ocean View. Gee, what interest could HE possibly have in sponsoring this legislation?
And, lest you wonder whether it’s really him, or someone else in the family business, this should answer that question:
We welcome questions, concerns and comments from our customers. Contact Gerald Hocker–Owner, Gerry Hocker–VP or our Store Managers by phone, mail or email as listed. Thank You.
G&E Supermarket
30244 Cedar Neck Road
Ocean View, DE 19970
302-539-9662
302-539-5255
email–hockersmarkets@mchsi.com
Store Manager–Tom GlennHocker’s Super Center
34960 Atlantic Avenue
Clarksville, DE 19970
302-537-1788
302-537-1877
email–hockersmarkets@mchsi.com
Store Manager–Ron Holloway
Proof that situational ethics are alive and well in Delaware. ‘Bulo predicts that Hocker will withdraw as a sponsor once this becomes public. He also predicts that other legislators will commiserate with him about the mean nasty bloggers who ‘outed’ him. Because this has been business as usual in Dover forever. Which is why ‘bulo blogs. Because the only way to effect change is to first turn over the rocks.
It is well known down here in Sussex that Hocker owns those stores. I didn’t know he was sponsoring this bill, but can’t say I’m surprised either.
Lesson #1 on how to kill a bill. 😉
Wow, thanks for the info.
Excuse me, but why is it wrong for elected citizen-legislators that are also business owners to sponsor legislation that would benefit their industry as long as that legislation does not favor them or their own particular businesses over others?
Yep, we all know that he owns the stores. He might still stay on as a sponsor, but abstain when it comes up for a vote.
I’m going to lobby for this. Beer and wine should be freed from the liquor store
Yes, Jason, free it from the stores and send it right to me!
I just don’t have any fight against this bill, even with this conflict. We’re one of only five for crying-out-loud that does NOT have it in place.
Is anonone kidding? This bill, if enacted, is gonna put significant additional revenue into Hocker’s pocket. If that’s not a conflict-of-interest, then ‘bulo doesn’t know what is. It would favor grocery stores, of which Hocker owns two, over, for example, liquor stores, of which he apparently owns none. If ‘bulo understands anonone’s argument, Hocker wouldn’t have a conflict-of-interest unless Hocker owned ALL the grocery stores that would benefit. Does that make sense to anyone?
Semantics aside, this is a textbook conflict-of-interest. And ‘bulo would be calling Hocker out if he was a D, as readers of his posts well know.
i think an1 is right. if all legislators sponsored bills that were a direct benefit to them, then we would have no need for lobbyists.
Arthur wrote: “i think an1 is right. if all legislators sponsored bills that were a direct benefit to them, then we would have no need for lobbyists.”
?????
Please explain, ‘bulo is curious.
It was a joke saying that if legislators would just blantantly look after themselves we would not need lobbyists to line their pocket if they could just do it through their own bills. those who consider themselves ‘full time legislators’ (an oxymoron) would still have to use lobbyists to line their pockets but the rest could write bills like “(legislator x firm) will be the sole provider of Y for the state.”
Got it. The Beast Who Slumbers had better go brew himself a strong pot of coffee. He’s more than a little slow on the uptake today.
No, we’d still need lobbyists because we can’t possibly get lawmakers from every special interest group.
Thanks for ‘outing’ Hocker….I’m sure that very few people in Sussex knew that he owned ‘Hockers.’
Anonone is not kidding.
If we are going to elect citizen-legislators, that are not full-time legislators but also have other sources of revenue, including jobs and/or business ownership, then it is reasonable to expect that they will offer or sponsor legislation related to their hands-on knowledge or expertise.
This bill seems to be one that is in the public’s interest and would have wide spread public support. It does not favor Hocker’s stores over others, nor does it target individual package stores. It removes an anti-competitive government regulation.
You can jerk your knee all you want at this bill and its sponsor, but it does not seem to me to be against the public interest.
So what if Hocker benefits? So will his competition and so will the public. Hey, maybe the package stores will start selling groceries and put Hocker out of business. Maybe we’ll all see lower prices because of increased competition.
Is it ‘Bulo’s position that legislators should not sponsor or support bills that have wide public benefit just because it might benefit the individual legislator, too?
Oh look, “callerRick” got one in on ‘bulo…and quite frankly, it was humorous. callerRick gets a “zing!”
…and hopefully, ‘bulo has that coffee brewing!!!
reasonable to expect that they will offer or sponsor legislation related to their hands-on knowledge or expertise.
There is a difference between this and legislation that you will specifically benefit from.
There is a difference between this and legislation that you will specifically benefit from.
If this bill were specifically for Hocker’s store only, I’d agree. But it is for ALL grocery stores in the state and it will make purchasing beer and wine more convenient and probably cheaper for all the public.
This bill stands on its merits. I think the sponsorship is irrelevant.
Then Hocker does have a real conflict of interest here.
Because advocating for legislation that provides the legislator with advantages or money is the textbook definition of conflict of interest. Which is a determination quite separate from the merits of the bill.
Big ups to ‘bulo for the research. You’re like a real jjourno. Nice!
I want to hear WDEL and see TNJ have to cite blogger El Somnambulo on Delaware Liberal.net
I love California you can also get hard liquor at Trader Joe’s
In some ways, anonone makes sense. If you’ve got a conflict-of-interest, you might as well be open about it. But what Hocker did, likely unwittingly, is unethical and it violates even the lax House and Senate ethics rules. There is a reason why George Bunting and John Still did not sponsor insurance legislation, they are/were in the business (That’s not to say that they weren’t working behind the scenes on insurance legislation, which is also verboten, but is winked at).
The bill will rise or fall with or without Hocker’s sponsorship. But to somehow argue that this is not a conflict-of-interest flies in the face of logic.
Having said that, most legislators are skilled at more insidious ways of furthering their own interests w/o it coming out. That’s why ‘bulo thinks that what Hocker did was an inadvertent mistake.
I dont think it was an inadvertent mistake. i think he is flauting the fact that a pol can do whatever they want and get away with it. if this were to pass and hockers stores began carrying beer and wine very quickly i think you would see other legs start putting in bills to directly help them. nancy cook will put in one where everyone of her family members gets a state job immediately (the 2 cousins that currently arent employees that is)
Call your state rep and ask them to support HB 193.
State of Delaware House of Representatives: Minority Party – (302) 744-4351
State of Delaware House of Representatives: Majority Party – (302) 744-4171
Call twice.
But, that’s the difference between Hocker and Nancy Cook. Cook (who also just may surface in ‘bulo’s “Not Just More Democrats, Better Democrats” series) has paved the way for her son Tommy to get one high-dollar state job after another. If you’re the Governor, it’s tough to say no to the chair of the Joint Finance Committee.
When it comes to unethical behavior, Hocker is mere plankton to be gobbled up by the likes of the voracious Cookfish.
Yeah…yeah…got it!
Call your state rep and ask them to support HB 193.
State of Delaware House of Representatives: Minority Party – (302) 744-4351
State of Delaware House of Representatives: Majority Party – (302) 744-4171
Call twice.
A drink to Jason! I shall buy it at our local Super Giant or Acme when the day is here!
A conflict of interest occurs when a legislator deliberately acts, often covertly, to benefit his/her own personal interest at the expense or detriment of the public interest.
That is not the case here, but I’d like to hear specifically what ethics rule(s) ‘Bulo thinks are being violated.
From Wikipedia:
A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization (such as a policeman, lawyer, insurance adjuster, politician, engineer, executive, director of a corporation, medical research scientist, physician, writer, editor, or an individual or organization cited as a source) has an interest that might compromise their reliability. A conflict of interest exists even if no improper act results from it, and can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the conflicted individual or organization. A conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted below – but it still exists.
This is pretty clearly COI — similar appearances of COI trigger all kinds of reporting in organizations that care about that, including my own. I don’t have to have gotten anything from the event — just the appearance of being in a situation that undermines my or the organization’s credibility is enough. Which is the case here.
If the bill is passed Jason330 will be able to buy his groceries, beer and music all in one store.
OK, so tell Hocker to get the eff of it so it can be debated on it’s content and not tossed under the bus on this. What about the prime sponsor Viola? Does he franchise Pathmark or anything?
If this is a conflict of interest by Wikipedia’s definitions, then it clearly can be mitigated by third party evaluation. In this case, that would be his fellow legislators and the voters.
By the way, would it be a conflict of interest to vote for a tax cut that you, along with the public, would benefit monetarily from?
Still waiting to hear what ethics rules are being violated…
It has been brought to my attention that Hocker’s name was added to the bill in error and that not only is he not a co-sponsor, he is opposed to the bill and has voted against prior incarnations of the bill.
Bulo, you are 100% wrong on this. Hockers name was printed on this bill without his knowing it. This happens at leg hall sometimes. You know it.
Its a simple mistake and Mr. Hocker was furious when I spoke to him. He has voted against this in the past and will note support it this time.
A correction is warrented in your post.
Thank You for correcting this.
That is incorrect, anon. The name does not appear on the legislation unless the sponsor/co-sponsor signs onto the bill, meaning the blue ‘backer’ of the bill.
He may wish he hadn’t signed his name to it, but he did.
Is Hocker still listed as a co-sponsor? Then there is no mistake.
He no doubt will ask that his name be removed as a co-sponsor on Tuesday when the House reconvenes. And that’s fine.
But, please, don’t pretend that your name, of all names, appeared from out of nowhere as a sponsor of the bill. It’s not as if this was one of those pieces of legislation where virtually everyone signed on as a sponsor.
“That is incorrect, anon. The name does not appear on the legislation unless the sponsor/co-sponsor signs onto the bill, meaning the blue ‘backer’ of the bill.”
There’s a big difference between what’s supposed to happen and what actually happens. In fact, it’s happened to Hocker before. Last year, he was listed as a co-sponsor on a resolution calling on DC to pass the Medicare-for-all government health care plan.
Hocker was not a co-sponsor in 2006 when Roy introduced this bill.
I will lay any amount on this that you want to agree on publically. Hocker will argue at great lengths and vote NO on this bill. Check Roger Roys previous version of this bill. The bills are drafted and PRINTED BEFORE you sign the blue backers.
Willing to bet?
Many of our liquor laws are products of the neo-prohibitionists who continue to make life more inconvenient for those who enjoy aloholic beverages. Quite often restrictive laws are passed allegedly ‘for the good of the public.’
In the Peoples’ Republic of Montgomery County (MD), the county has a monopoly on liquor sales. The goal is to discourage consumption. Selections are poor, service is lousy, and prices are not that great. Many go over the line to buy in another county or the District of Columbia.
There are moronic legislators who outlawed wine purchase via the Internet. The is justified as a means to ‘protect the childern’ but this is the sort of lie we hear from too many of elected officials. It was intended to protect local merchants from competition.
If anyone can provide any other rationale for such laws, I would be pleased to refute it.
Competition should be encouraged, not thwarted.
Anon., ‘bulo’s source is the official record of the Delaware State House of Representatives. Here it is:
http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS145.NSF/93487d394bc01014882569a4007a4cb7/ed1494a99ae862a7852575b500761a52?OpenDocument
When and if an official of the House of Representatives acknowledges that his name was placed on the bill in error, ‘bulo will acknowledge it here.
And, BTW, as you know, that is different than asking that one’s name be removed as a cosponsor, which happens fairly frequently when constituents let a legislator know that they’re not happy with their sponsorship.
And, one more thing, FSP and ‘anon.’. Just ‘cuz a legislator says it’s so don’t make it so. That’s why there’s an official record of legislative business.
Bulo, FYI- Hocker was furious and signed a pink slip asking to be removed as a sponsor YESTERDAY, not on this coming Tuesday.
I know it was a honest mistake on your part by posting this, but to the best of my knowledge Hocker has consistently voted against Sunday sales, gambling and I’m almost sure he doesnt sell lottery tickets in his stores.
If you’re listed as a sponsor to a bill that you don’t support, is it a conflict of interest? 🙂
Gawd, this stuff is funny.
Correct, the record will show that Hocker removed his name YESTERDAY before the bill was introduced.
“And, BTW, as you know, that is different than asking that one’s name be removed as a cosponsor, which happens fairly frequently when constituents let a legislator know that they’re not happy with their sponsorship.”
As someone who has introduced legislation before with a cosponsor added who didn’t sign the backer, I know you to be wrong about that.
“If you’re listed as a sponsor to a bill that you don’t support, is it a conflict of interest? ”
No, it’s an interest in conflict.
Anon., it is NOT a mistake when one accurately cites the public record. Of course he wants his name removed. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t initially sign on. The public record says he did.
it’s an interest in conflict.
LOL. Which we all seem to have.
Maybe he was drunk out of his mind.
“The public record says he did.”
No. The public record lists him as a cosponsor. It does not say he asked to be there.
LOL FSP LOL
I think they have sponsors in AA. Maybe somebody was confused. I dunno. I still wish I could get me some Boones Farm at the Superfresh.
Do you think the supermarkets will carry store brands? I bet a box of Acme Good ‘n Red Wino would be delicious.
I may have to change the name of my blog to “Interest in Conflict.”
And just when Rush330 and you were starting to warm up to each other again…
C’mon, FSP. That indeed is what the record shows. Unless one affirmatively agrees to be a sponsor, one is not put on legislation as a sponsor. They generally initial a draft of the bill once they are invited to co-sponsor, and their name gets added.
‘Bulo will grant you that it might be conceivably possible that an egregious error was made, and that the person with probably the clearest conflict-of-interest was inadvertently added on as a co-sponsor. If that is the case, once that is made public, you have ‘bulo’s word that he will make it a point to publicize it in a new thread.
When the Beast Who Slumbers went to research HB 193, it was with the intent of looking at the real details of the bill and fleshing out his initial post. The last thing that he expected to see was Hocker’s name on it as a co-sponsor. But there it was.
“C’mon, FSP. That indeed is what the record shows. Unless one affirmatively agrees to be a sponsor, one is not put on legislation as a sponsor. They generally initial a draft of the bill once they are invited to co-sponsor, and their name gets added.”
I will agree that is the way it’s supposed to be, and the way it usually is. I just know that it’s happened before.
Correct FSP.
The vote will show that Hocker will vote NO on this bill.
And if it happened this time, ‘bulo and DL will publicly announce it.
For now, he has no choice but to go by the public record as opposed to two partisan bloggers who seem to be dancing as fast as they can.
Not dancing, just stating that facts as I know it.
Perhaps you could profile the legislators who have state connected jobs and the number of realtives they have on the payroll? Now, there is some money to be concerned about.
The revenue from this change will do little for Gerald Hocker’s business. By the way I believe he has the second largest grocery business in Delaware which is non chain.
If he does benefit it will not make up for the raise in gross receipts tax he will suffer from.
Mike Protack
Talking about conflict of intrest. Rep Miros daughter is lobbyist for Grocery store owners.
I like beer, liquor, and wine! I shop at Acme and Super Giant, too! I also support this bill! It’s a conflict of interest, I tell you!
If the bill passes, store owners are not mandated to carry beer and wine. I will be surprised if Hocker will sell it in his stores.
Talking about conflict of intrest. Rep Miros daughter is lobbyist for Grocery store owners.
Shoot. Don’t cherry pick, mole. Keep going, because you could find matches like that beyond Miro.
I have been waiting almost forever for my name to randomly appear as a sponsor on a bill. Hocker is extremelylucky to have had it done to him twice.
oh for pete’s sake… at least his out in the open about it. I don’t know that I would have put my name on as a sponsor … and WOW – I agree with Protack on the profit/tax balance. A state who wants a sports betting community but won’t let a person buy wine for dinner in the grocery store…
Hocker – thanks for the bill, I appreciate simplifying my shopping! 🙂
What AncoraImparo said. Also – Nobody raised a ruckus when Hocker supported “Peach Pie” as the official Delaware dessert even though that helps his bottom line!
Plus it is bullshit that Peach Pie is the official Delaware dessert. J’accuse! bitches.
God imagine the living he is making off those peaches…. he is just running away with peach compensation!
This is common throughout the country and those who have lived in Sussex County for a while know that Rep Hocker owns those stores remember this is Delaware Im sure evem many of the non natives who live there know this
This is such a non-issue. Pass the bill! I want my Superfresh Wine now!
“Maybe we’ll all see lower prices because of increased competition.”
If that’s what you think, you don’t understand the beer-wine-liquor industry in Delaware. Alcohol retailers can order each product through only its sole distributor, a cozy little deal that guarantees their bottom lines while restricting the ability of retailers to set prices below a certain point.
If you’re really after something that will help the public — as opposed to helping WalMart — work to end the oligarchy that exists at the distributor level.
Once again, one of you twits will have to explain to me how driving small retailers out of business so large corporate groceries will benefit qualifies as “liberal” or “progressive.” Seems to me you’re thinking with your gullet here.
Oh, by the way, Hocker has more nefarious conflicts of interest than this. I understand the bill to dredge the Assowoman Canal directly impacted property a relative owns.
Once again, one of you twits will have to explain to me how driving small retailers out of business so large corporate groceries will benefit qualifies as “liberal” or “progressive.” Seems to me you’re thinking with your gullet here.
Okay. I’ll come clean. I HATE going to my nearest package store. This could be called the “increase Jason’s quality of life bill.”
I’ve paddled the Assowoman before, and much of it you’d have to portage a kayak to get by at low tide. Another money pit. Increase boat registration fees as boaters in Hocker’s district are the only one’s “benefitting” from the dredging.
We already talked about who may or may not survive here.
The package goods stores in my neighborhood sell 40s and who knows what else. Which is why I shop at Krestons and State Line mostly. Both of these stores are specialists in variety and interest — something that grocery stores won’t do.
Wonder if Geezer knows how many small package stores closed as a result of the Costco and BJs liquor stores opening?
Meatball wrote:
“I’ve paddled the Assowoman before…”
For some reason, the Pervert Who Slumbers likes that as a stand-alone sentence.
Bulo, I don’t know if you will read or catch this post because it was a few weeks back, but Hocker has a letter to the editor at sussexcountian.com explaining that his name was on the bill by mistake. Thanks