General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Thurs., June 10, 2010
Following yesterday’s session, Big Brother will have an even tighter hold on your wallet. You’ll now pay $110 instead of $75 for a red light violation caught on camera, courtesy of HB 189(Mitchell). The bill passed the Senate and heads to the Governor. And, in the spirit of creeping Big Brotherism, don’t refer to these as fines. They are…“administrative assessment(s)”. I’m consistently surprised by public acquiescence to encroachments upon their rights to privacy. Wonder where cameras will be installed next.
Here’s the Session Activity Report. The only new info concerns the bills passed in the Senate. For some reason, no one at Leg Hall seems able to forestall having the exact same information from the House being posted for two consecutive days. For the record, no bills passed the House yesterday as the House was in committee meetings. Maybe someday the record will accurately reflect what actually went on. Today is not that day.
Today’s Senate Agenda includes several municipal charter changes, including HB 395(Hocker), which permits non-resident property owners to vote in Bethany Beach municipal elections. This new bill tries to clarify things from the previous attempt, but it still confuses me. Here’s the language from the bill’s synopsis:
“This act is a recognition of the fact that, in “second home” resort communities, many property owners place title to their resort real estate in trust for estate planning purposes. Further, in order to prevent an unduly large number of persons from qualifying to vote in Town elections as “non-resident property owners” by having multiple owners on the deed to a single parcel of real estate, this act limits the maximum number of persons who may vote as non-resident property owners in Town elections to eight natural persons per property.“
Setting aside whether there’s a difference between eight natural persons and eight unnatural persons, this still suggests that eight non-residents have more say in town affairs than the retired couple living there year ’round, and that doesn’t strike me as fair.
Also notable are SB 263(Sokola), which makes adequate student growth a prerequisite in order for teachers to “receive the highest level of notice and hearing protections”; and SB 266(McDowell), which affords the Secretary of DNREC greater flexibility in utilizing Delaware’s Green Energy Fund. Tommywonk, who supports this measure, wrote about it here yesterday (second article down, for those with ADD).
The House has a lengthy agenda, or more accurately, agendas, scheduled for today. In the last few weeks of a legislative session, the House has generally worked from multiple agendas, and it is not uncommon to switch back-and-forth between agendas several times during the course of a legislative day. At least part of this is due to the fact that members are often engaged in negotiations concerning legislation and/or the ‘money’ committees are meeting during session. The result is that the prime sponsor or floor manager of a bill may not actually be on the floor when it’s time to run a bill. The multiple agendas afford the Majority Leader options in keeping things moving in a ‘mix-‘n-match’ way.
Also, while we don’t yet officially know which bills were released from committee yesterday, we do know that some of the bills considered in yesterday’s meetings are on today’s agenda, always a dead giveaway. And I consider it progress that RSmitty appears to be making out better than Uberlobbyist David Swayze this session, as Smitty’s priorities are both on House agendas today. HB 447(Schwartzkopf) and HB 432(Viola). I’m a wine and (very occasional) microbeer guy, so Smitty’s HB 432 throwdown challenge will go unanswered. But all hail the Porcelain Pioneer for his tireless devotion to the cause.
It’ll be interesting to see if D and R party leaders put the full-court press on in opposition to HB 425(Jaques). Earlier in the legislative session, HB 245 was enacted into law, with only one of 62 legislators (Sen. Simpson) voting against it. The bill included a provision that was controversial to some ‘minor’ parties, as it increased the threshold of registered voters a party must have in order for it to be included on the General Election ballot. HB 245 increased the threshold from 5/100 of 1% to 10/100 of 1%. HB 425 restores the 5/100 of 1% threshold for the 2010 General Election. FWIW, 1/10 of 1 percent hardly seems like an onerous imposition on a would-be political party. It costs money, manpower and logistics to add more and more parties to an unwieldy ballot. It is, after all, a ‘popular’ election, and if small parties, which often in reality aren’t ‘parties’, but vehicles for self-promotion,can’t generate even a minimal number of followers, they shouldn’t automatically be entitled to a ballot position, IMHO.
HB 237(Viola) requires all ‘newly constructed businesses and other places of public accommodation’ to be equipped with automatic doors at the main entrance for handicapped accessibility. Say-y-y-y, (he said snarkily), doesn’t this fly in the face of ‘regulatory flexibility’?
Rep. Dan Short’s legislation adding incoming revenue and project revenue into the calculation of fiscal notes is on the agenda. I consider this basic common sense, and I have no idea why this hasn’t been done already. I hope it passes the House, and then we’ll just have to see if Nancy Cook will exercise what’s left of her power to try and kill this in the Senate. I hope not.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got plans to show up on a red light camera real soon…
Tags: Delaware General Assembly, Green Energy; microbreweries;
You missed HB 442…..big big new for NCC. Almost entirely supported by Kent County legis, this is a big present to Gary Warren and Artesian (both seen dawdling at the Transportation, Land Use and Infrastructure Committee doorway on Wednesday afternoon to celebrate their victory with the swift passage out of committee.
Word is that Ennis refused to rush the bill through his Senate Committee, and rightly so, seeing as it effects his constituents who pretty much believed that the county had the rights to control the pace of development in our state.
Look out for the rabble-rousing this bill has already generated below the canal. Calls have been placed with Coons and Ennis and the Governor’s office and the phones are ringing in Bell’s and Power’s districts and the mood is dark. Powers thought he had a problem with WFH? Wait until this s**t hits the fan since he is glued to Gary Warren’s hip. Chris Roberts is the third part of the equation – the other large landowner who wants to develope their land yesterday – which means that Jerry Heisler’s hand has got to be in this somewhere as well.
House Bill # 465
AN ACT PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE III AND THE SCHEDULE OF THE DELAWARE CONSTITUTION OF 1897, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RECORDER OF DEEDS.
Synopsis: This is the first leg of a constitutional amendment to provide for the development of a statewide and integrated recordation system. At the present time, the three counties operate three separate offices that handle the functions of the Recorder of Deeds. Each operates using its own requirements and procedures, each provides services only in its respective county, and each is managed by a different elected official.
This proposed constitutional amendment will enable the General Assembly to create by statute a more cost-effective and efficient statewide system for recordation. The proposed amendment removes the constitutional provisions requiring that the Recorder of Deeds be an elected office.
House Bill # 468
AN ACT PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE III, ARTICLE IV, AND THE SCHEDULE OF THE DELAWARE CONSTITUTION OF 1897, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE REGISTER OF WILLS.
Synopsis: This is the first leg of a constitutional amendment to provide for an integrated and state-wide Register of Wills office. At the present time, the three counties operate three separate offices that handle the functions of the Register of Wills. Each operates using its own requirements and procedures, each provides services solely in its respective county, and each is managed by a different elected official.
This proposed constitutional amendment will enable the General Assembly to create by statute a more cost-effective and efficient system of Register of Wills offices. The proposed amendment removes the constitutional provisions requiring that the Register of Wills be an elected office. Because the Register of Wills presently acts as a clerk of the Court of Chancery, the proposed amendment reorganizes that function under the leadership and jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery.
Good first steps. We also should eliminate the sheriff’s offices, probably in favor of privatization — the mileage payments alone are a disgrace. Put it out for bids and we’d save a bundle.
We also should fold the IC’s and Treasurer’s offices into the executive branch.
wow great ideas! eliminate the Sheriff and the Recorder of Deeds… in the middle of a forclosure crisis. I bet your banker buddies love that.
It’s not like it takes an elective official to do the work, Einstein. It’s not “eliminating” the positions — it’s consolidating them. I thought you conservatives liked privatization when feasible?
All the county row offices – sheriff, recorder of deeds, register of wills and clerk of the peace – should be folded into the regular county government structure. There’s no need to have the top officials elected. Is there a Democratic way to serve a subpoena? A Republican way to record a deed? A Green way to issue a marriage license? (Well, down here, George Parish would say his way would be to not marry teh gays, but that’s another subject entirely.)
The only plausible, rational reason for continuing to elect the row officers is to provide at least half-employment for up-and-coming politicians, so they can keep their names on the ballot every so often and pretend to do something without having to show up to work more than once a week. As enthusiastic as Sussex’s Register of Wills Greg Fuller is, it’s very clear he’s just using it as a stepping-stone to something else. He ran unsuccessfully for Clerk of the Peace last time, and got a Minner appointment to Register of Wills when Dave Wilson quit it for his House seat. John Brady used the Register in Chancery job, and then the Recorder of Deeds job, as resume points for his IC campaign. I have no idea what Eric Swanson’s going to run for, but I’m sure he’ll parlay his sheriff’s job into something else soon.
But there’s also no need to have the state take over those duties. That proposal is another Markell sleight-of-hand to help balance the state budget on the backs of the counties. Brilliant politics – bad policy.
Anon: How would the state make money by taking over county duties? Recorder of deeds revenue exceeds expenses, so I suppose there’s some money to be made there. But isn’t it also possible to see savings through consolidation?
If we’re going to make counties responsible for their own expenses, the real savings to the state budget would come from ending the state police-patrol-Sussex County arrangement.
As is so conveniently forgotten around these parts, the IC’s Captive Insurance Bureau was heralded by DEDO and the Governor’s office as a hoped-for economic development engine for the state (the presser with Karen, Jack and Alan can easily be googled online). Those so blinded by the rhetoric and hate of KWS probably won’t believe it but the word is out that the Bureau is doing a slammin’ business these days.
There is plenty of money out there and evidently, our Captive trusts are being successfully ‘sold’ as a safe place to keep it and the business is going like gang-busters. Place a call to Alan Levin or Jack Markell if you don’t believe me.
What this tells me is that it is not at all far fetched for the Treasurer’s office to also create products for potential economic development and as such, Chip Flowers should be sharpening up his ideas and selling the crap out of them to the public. Even Geezer admitted that he hasn’t paid much attention to Chip’s ideas. He is wrong that all of the scope and authority of the proposals need legislative action. Only two of them do – Bill Dunn asked the question directly when Chip presented to the Civic League last month.
Chip has a long way to go to solidify his proposals and I wish him well in getting people used to the notion of the Treasurer’s office taking on some creative programming. But it is wrong to say that our economic engines have to be restricted to the executive’s staffers and appointees nor is it particularly reasonable to limit the state with that mind set.
The sheriff’s office is also a moneymaker thanks to the foreclosure boom, and with the recent fee increases down here, CoP is bringing in cash as well. So by moving those offices to the state, Markell saves money through consolidation and brings in more cash that wasn’t on the books before. Like I said, sleight of hand – a one-time budget fix.
If you want to debate policing, then go after Kent, as well. No county police force in either Kent or Sussex means state cops patrol the unincorporated areas. Sussex at least gives some cash to the state for part of the salaries of the extra officers.
Part of what we see these days is the outgrowth of a political and governance system that still hasn’t matured from the ’60s and ’70s. Why should a state with three counties have three different forms of government? Why should one county have a police force and the other two not? It’s stupid and inefficient.
“Even Geezer admitted that he hasn’t paid much attention to Chip’s ideas.”
That’s not what I said at all. I said that Chip’s “ideas” consist of going on a listening tour. I don’t think the IC’s office should be running as an independent elected unit, and I don’t think the treasurer’s office should be following suit. In politics, new sources of revenue under independent or semi-independent authority = new sources of mischief. As you ought to know, Nancy.
Anon: The summonses would be served whether a sheriff does it or a contracted unit does it. It’s not a “money maker” as long as a well-paid, elected sheriff also gets to put in for mileage traveled to serve the summonses.
Geezer: You misunderstand. I was referring to the foreclosure boom that’s brought in tons of revenue for the counties. Not sure why you seem to think all the sheriff does is serve summonses.
In Sussex, as an example, revenue from the sheriff’s office has increased from $590,589 in FY2007 to a projected $2.4 million for FY2011. If that isn’t a revenue bump, I don’t know what is.
The sheriff’s office expenses, by contrast, were at $590,375 in FY2007 and have only increased to $649,865 for FY2011 projected. That’s about $1.75 million to the good. Guesstimate about the same for Kent and probably twice that for NCCo, and you’re talking a sizeable chunk of teachers’ salaries that Markell won’t have to cut. Consider savings from consolidations and efficiencies, and it’s a big bonus for him, sucky for the counties, who’ve already budgeted that revenue into their plans.
(All figures from http://www.sussexcountyde.gov/docs/budget/2011/2011_Budget_Numbers_As_Proposed.pdf. It’s a large file, be warned.)
145th General Assembly
House Joint Resolution # 12
Primary Sponsor: D.E. Williams Additional Sponsor(s): Sen. Katz
CoSponsors: Reps. Hudson, Kovach, Lavelle, Longhurst; Sens. Henry, Sokola
Introduced on : 06/10/2010
Long Title: RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS NO LONGER BE AN ELECTED OFFICE AND THAT A WORKING GROUP BE ESTABLISHED TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CREATING A SINGLE STATEWIDE RECORDATION SYSTEM, THEREBY MAKING STATE AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT.
Synopsis: This resolution recommends that the County Recorder of Deeds no longer be an elected office, thereby streamlining the administration of these functions, reducing government costs, saving taxpayer dollars and improving the efficiency of state and county government. This resolution would establish a working group of all affected constituencies to develop the legislation necessary to allow for the creation of a single statewide recordation system in coordination with the Department of State. The working group would be required to develop recommendations that are “revenue neutral” for the counties.
House Joint Resolution # 13
Primary Sponsor: George Additional Sponsor(s): Sen. Katz
CoSponsors: Reps. Barbieri, Hudson, Kovach, Lavelle, Longhurst, Schooley, D.E. Williams; Sen. Sorenson
Introduced on : 06/10/2010
Long Title: RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNTY REGISTER OF WILLS NO LONGER BE AN ELECTED OFFICE AND THAT A WORKING GROUP BE ESTABLISHED TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO TRANSFER THE DUTIES OF THE REGISTER OF WILLS TO THE COURT OF CHANCERY, THEREBY MAKING STATE AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT.
Synopsis: This resolution recommends that the County Registers of Wills no longer be an elected office, thereby streamlining the administration of these functions, reducing government costs, saving taxpayer dollars and improving the efficiency of state and county government. This resolution would establish a working group of all affected constituencies to develop the legislation necessary to allow for the Court of Chancery to conduct the functions of the Register of Wills under the authority of the Register in Chancery. The working group would be required to develop recommendations that are “revenue neutral” for the counties and that ensure that current employees have the option to retain the pension and benefit plans offered by the counties.
Current Status: House House Administration Committee On 06/10/2010