General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Weds., Jan. 26, 2011
As the General Assembly waits for the Governor to submit his budget proposal, some real work is nevertheless being done.
At least on the House side. The House passed three bills of note yesterday. Rep. Bennett’s FOIA bill once again unanimously passed the House, as its forerunner did last year. Last year, Sen. DeLuca buried this bill in the Senate Executive Committee. The prime Senate sponsors on this bill? Senators Peterson and Katz. What are the odds that DeLuca does the ‘right’ thing this year? Time to start flooding Tony’s ‘personal assistant’ with phone calls. She should be able to hear better assuming that Fortress DeLuca has been completed. By the way, can someone please explain to me by what authority the Napoleonic Martinet was able to do this? According to Sen. Simpson, DeLuca did not even bring this proposal to the Legislative Council Committee, which is comprised of members of leadership, and which approves such things. I find that hard to believe and have to think that DeLuca had the proper authority, but I honestly don’t know. Can someone in the know clue us in on just how DeLuca was able to spend the money to make his office less accessible? Inquiring minds want to know.
Earl Jaques’ bill requiring those seeking to run in party primaries to actually be registered as members of that particular party passed as well. Some will recall the 15 minutes of fame that a couple of Dover-area libertarians had by filing to run in multiple primaries even though they weren’t members of the parties in question. They thought they had found a loophole to make a mockery of the concept of party primaries. Well, that loophole, if it even existed, will be closed soon. In some misguided notion of democracy, both Reps. Kowalko and Dennis E. Williams (the Brandywine Hundred Williams) voted ‘no’. To me the notion is simple and basic, if you want to seek your party’s nomination, you first and foremost must be a member of that party. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about that.
A third bill amends the charter of the City of New Castle.
While I generally reserve comment on just-introduced bills until they are scheduled for committee hearings, I want everyone to know that Monsignor Greg Lavelle has once again taken up the cause of pedophile priests and those who enable them. He’s introduced two bills, here and here, to limit damages that impact exactly one, and only one, section of the Delaware Code. That section?:
“§ 8145. Civil suits for damages based upon sexual abuse of a minor by an adult.”
The more things change…
All was quiet from Fortress DeLuca and the State Senate yesterday.
There actually is a Senate Agenda today. While there’s only one bill on it, it’s an important bill. HB 1(Schooley) will, from a practical standpoint, ensure that the State of Delaware is eligible for $33 million annually in Federal education funds. It has been fast-tracked through the General Assembly and no doubt will be signed by Governor Markell by week’s end. The only real suspense is to see whether Bloviator Bonini votes no.
The rest of legislative session is once again given over to committee meetings. Let’s track the highlights, starting with the Senate:
*Well, whaddaya know? Meet the new year, same as the old year. Tiny Tony’s fealty to FOIA doesn’t extend to letting us know exactly whose nominations by the Governor will be considered by the Senate Executive Committee this week. Perhaps Tony’s ‘personal assistant’ was too busy showing DeLuca how to manipulate his, um, technology at his ‘other’ job?
*Sen. Henry’s needle exchange legislation will be considered in today’s Health & Social Services Committee meeting. Hopefully, this will be the year…
*A joint House/Senate meeting of the respective Transportation committees will hear a presentation from DELDOT. Now, that should be interesting.
*Sen. Bethany Hall-Long seems to love FOIA as much as Tony DeLuca does. Her County/Community Affairs Committee meets today to consider…”Review of Bills as assigned”. This does not constitute proper notice, and Hall-Long knows it. I guess someone has to keep the memory of Nancy Cook alive.
*The Senate Education Committee considers SB 16(Sokola), which “implements the recommendations of the Senate’s Teacher Hiring Task Force. It will result in the creation of an estimated unit count each March, which the Department of Education will conduct using existing resources. The state will guarantee that school districts receive unit funds for the following school year equivalent to 98% of the estimated unit count. This will allow districts to make offers of employment to new teachers in the late spring and early summer. The Act also requires greater transparency by school districts with respect to their hiring practices. The Act must be reauthorized prior to April 1, 2012, so the state has an opportunity to ensure that the estimated unit count is reliable. I would like to know what Joanne Christian thinks of this bill. JC, the floor is yours.
A check at the House meeting schedule suggests that…uh, most of the meetings have been canceled. Is session gonna be snowed out? I wrote all these well-burnished words for nothing? Of course not, that was just a rhetorical question. I wrote them for you.
If indeed you find yourself cocooned at home with nothing on but your radio, sidle on over to WDEL-1150 on your dial and curl up with Al Mascitti and El Somnambulo as we discuss the latest legislative, political and governmental doings today. Al’s show is from 9 a.m. to noon. I ‘ll make it in from Parts Unknown at 10 (had a grueling match with Teletubbymundo in Wilkes Barre last night). Governor Markell, you will get Priority Treatment if you call in to discuss changing our Flat Tax for Billionaires (I’m for it, are you?). And, Senator DeLuca, feel free to discuss FOIA and Your Fortress Solitude with us as well. Finally, each and every one of you reading these daily screeds are invited to join our talkfest at 10 today.
See you tomorrow when the General Assembly almost has to be in session, snow or no snow. Either that, or JFC hearings could get pushed back.
Dear El,
If you had been in attendance you would have noted that my remarks and objections to the Bill were very specific. I would have supported the section of the bill that protected Party autonomy in “primary” ballot participation. I did object to the amendment since it very willfully allowed a specific individual or individuals to change their party registration during the blackout period while disallowing the rest of the voters from doing the same. That borders on a constitutionally questionable discriminatory practice.
The rest of the bill did not even pretend to protect the parties autonomy but rather to protect the two major parties market share. It disallows individuals from ballot access if they choose to be placed on a third party ballot position and the third party allows that. This bill discriminates against the ballot access rights of the individual and the ability of any third party to have a measured influence in one of the major parties platforms or the ability to represent a minority viewpoint in a very limited context within either of the two major parties. Until there is real “campaign finance reform” there will be a preservation of a very limited access that must be accepted as support, without reservation,of a democrat or a republican, or taking your concerns and issues and burying them in a time capsule. I am not railing against a two party system (by acclaim not mandate) and I will always be a dedicated lifelong partner of my beloved democrat party but we are not being honest with ourselves if we don’t allow different points of view or nuances of the mainstream to be acknowledged at the ballot box. The key is weighing the infringement on the rights of the parties (hence my support for the primary reform in the bill) and the infringement on the individuals and the third parties to participate (hence my nay vote). I hope you can see that it is not as simple as you would suppose or propose.
Regards,
John Kowalko
“§ 8145. Civil suits for damages based upon sexual abuse of a minor by an adult.”
Not to open a can of worms but this bill is not intended to protect the priests or those who enabled them. The lawyers for the plaintiffs started by going after the diocese but have now decided to pursue $$$ from parishes and schools as well. The parishes and schools like St Elizabeths are truly at risk of closing. Catholic Charities is going to have to seriously cut back on its work in our community. If this is what the leglislature intended or desired then no changes should be made. If it was not the intent of the original legislation, it is incumbent on those who sponsored or voted for it (including Lavelle) to address its unintended impact. Not trying to support or argue for the abusers. The reality is that schools like St Elizabeths and St Pauls in Wilm will definitely close. And it is very likely that another 20-25 schools and parishes (at minimum) throughout the state will close. If that is satisfactory to our elected officials, then nothing should be done.
The abuse lawsuits are never about money if you ask the abused and their lawyers, but the first thing Neuberger tells TNJ is that St. Elizabeth’s land and property are worth $30 million, so the diocese has holdings worth $1.7 billion. He gets that by multiplying $30 million by the 57 parishes in the diocese, but not every parish is the size of St. Elizabeth
If it is not about money, then why all the whining about Lavelle’s bills? I’ve yet to see Neuberger or SNAP say exactly what it is about if money is not it.
It’s about accountability and justice – something the victims would have gotten if the church had made the protection of its most vulnerable more important than than hiding its perpetrators.
The thing i want to know is why on earth our legislators ought to be in the business of putting its thumb on the scales for something it has no real stake in.
I love it when all these so-called “leaders” get together to to the people’s business. FOIA is not the really freedom of information act. I call it the futility of information access. The Senate will give you what they think you should have. The House only supports it to make themselves look good. As for “Tiny Tony”, take a look around. Not as many hangers-on surrounding him after session as when TGA and company were in power. MY predictions? Tony is out before the session ends.
“It’s about accountability and justice – something the victims would have gotten if the church had made the protection of its most vulnerable more important than than hiding its perpetrators.
The thing i want to know is why on earth our legislators ought to be in the business of putting its thumb on the scales for something it has no real stake in.”
You mean by eliminating the statute of limitations and allowing civil lawsuits on things that allegedly took place 40 or 50 years ago?
And what do you mean by accountability and justice? How much money equals justice? Would opening the files and making public apologies be enough justice?
Dr. Floyd McDowell delivered one the most vital bills to reform the prison industrial complex in Delaware to the legislators. Margaret Rose Henry sponsored it asked the Senate Budget Office to go over the bill and get it ready for the legislators. One person in the Budget Office informed her “this bill cant be enacted, cuz we have to have “change” too many laws, to implement it”…Right. Isnt that what the legislators do…change draconian laws? Dr. McDowells bill can be found at: deinformedvoters.org. That bill was accepted by the NACCP as a model for the country. It was based on the very successful California model which established a drug court, put drug users in treatment centers in lieu of prison. It costs $34,000 to incarcerate but $3400 to provide drug treatment. It not only makes sense economically but all republicans should be on board with this. But we cant even find a good democrat who is willing to take on the States prison industrial complex. Even many of the Supreme court judges are concerned as they are unable to give a decision on a case by case basis because of the draconian mandatory sentencing. Why isnt Beau Biden changing these laws instead going before the legislature adding on and piling on more “crimes” instead of reforming this sick, collective punishment system.
The Diocese of Delaware and individual parishes are private entities. Yes, there’s a reality in play: They provide many services at lower cost than the public sector does (education included). But is it right and/or just for the legislature to step in to save those private entities from themselves? They chose cover-up over disclosure long ago. They are now reaping what they sowed (pretty sure I read that in the Bible somewhere). If a private company had harmed people and now faced liabilities, should the legislature step in to limit that company’s exposure? What about a religious denomination with fewer adherents?
The Catholic heirarchy wants special treatment. I say no.
‘The thing i want to know is why on earth our legislators ought to be in the business of putting its thumb on the scales for something it has no real stake in’
I would think that our elected officials have a stake in their local communities and our state overall.
“If a private company had harmed people and now faced liabilities, should the legislature step in to limit that company’s exposure?”
Should this apply to the state as well?
“The Catholic heirarchy wants special treatment. I say no”
I understand those who say no. But this effort is not being driven by the heirarchy it is being driven by parents and others who are trying to save their parishes and schools. It is being driven in spite of the heirarchy. As you stated there are realities. The schools and parishes will close. Catholic Charities and other ministries will cease or severly cut back there work in our communities. The lawyers will take half of the $$$ due to the bankruptcy costs and contingencies. That is the reality.
Anon, how does someone in the budget office have a say? I’d like MRH to comment. And to ES, who is TD’s personal assistant?
The lawyers will take one-third, not half. And the parishes and schools are not “theirs” (the parents’ and parishioners’) for the saving. The Catholic Church doesn’t work that way. The Catholic Church is the epitome of a dictatorial, top-down decision-making organization. They made their decisions, and those decisions have consequences.
Your best defense is to claim that, as with GM and the banks, the failure is too devastating to risk. But that is an argument for bailouts, not for restricting the amount victims should get. If the government chooses to step in on that level, it’s a different story. Taking cheap shots at the legal system, as Lavelle and you did — our system’s only method for victims to get their due — shows contempt for the American system of civil justice. If we’re going to change that, let’s change it for all, not just for the Catholic Church.
The sum offered, you’ll notice, is always the same — $250,000. That means the lawyers would get about $83,000 per case, not enough to make them worthwhile to pursue (remember, there’s no guarantee they would win the lawsuits). This is, not coincidentally, exactly the same sum Republicans always float when talking about medical cases, too, and for the same reason — they know it represents not reform, but the end of the civil lawsuit system, giving businesses, doctors (and churches) a low, set rate to compensate victims for their wrongdoing.
That approach has worked SO well in setting fines for major polluters, hasn’t it? The Delaware City refinery never closed for major pollution leaks, because at its peak it made about $1 million A DAY, while paying about $10,000 a day for the pollution. Yes, by all means, let’s duplicate that injustice wherever possible.
The overall lawyers take will likely be closer to 50% due to the bankruptcy case. This include creditors attorneys. I am not saying that a $250k cap is the right figure or direction. It happens to be the one in the proposed legislation. Maybe it should be more. Or maybe other ammendments to the law would be sensible. If you believe that the best resolution of these cases is the closure and sale of the parishes and the schools in order to reimburse the victims then you are entitled that that view. I just disagree.
Parties should be able to run anyone they want on their party ticket. That’s the most democratic position one can take on the matter. We need more democracy in our political processes, not less.
Idl: You don’t have to believe that’s the best resolution to dislike this bill. This is a rescue-the-church bill, plain and simple.
You mean by eliminating the statute of limitations and allowing civil lawsuits on things that allegedly took place 40 or 50 years ago?
And what do you mean by accountability and justice? How much money equals justice? Would opening the files and making public apologies be enough justice?
Expanding the statute of limitations let the victims at least try to get some justice from their perpetrators — a thing that their church failed to provide them. This action was about helping to remove thumbs from the scales of justice.
And as for how much money it would take to get justice? I have no idea, but I wonder if you were in a victim’s position what justice for child rape might look like to you.
But no matter what the form of justice may be, there is no doubt that restricting a victim’s options is something of a bailout for the Catholic Church. Something that they simply do not deserve here.
“You don’t have to believe that’s the best resolution to dislike this bill”
I agree.
What I am trying to communicate (and not doing well) is that people and families who have built and supported their local parishes and schools(ie St Elizabeths) are desparately trying to figure out a way to save them. They truly don’t know what to do. They despise and are sickened by what these priests and diocese have done. They played no role in it. They know the victims. They also know the role that these institutions play in their community for the young and old alike. What are they to do? They are hoping that their elected officials will find a solution. Maybe there is none. Maybe there is. But they are hoping and praying for one.
How long before the sharks notice that more children are sexually abused by public school teachers than by priests and begin going after public school districts. Waiving the Statute of Limitations makes it so much easier to get the win.
Most contigency case lawyers take 1/3rd if the case settles and 1/2 if it goes to trial. and that is 1/3 or 1/2 after expenses. (expert testimony, travel, reproduction costs, etc)
There is no doubt that the families in these parishes were not party to the abuses. But they’ve been failed by their institution — the Catholic Church — and that is the institution they should be looking for solutions from. Which is apparently failing them all over again.
Here’s the thing… there have been many other Catholic schools/parishes that the community loved, supported and invested in, but when push came to shove the diocese had no trouble closing them down.
It just seems that the Catholic Church is a business when it’s a matter of dollars and cents and a spiritual center when being a business isn’t convenient.
The problem is that the assets are the real estate. The parishes and schools themesleves. Pople may not believe this but the other assests of the diocese are being exhausted. There seems to be nothing that will satisfy the lawyers for the victims other than closing and selling the schools. I have taken too much of everyone’s time and space here today. Thanks for listening.
Ishmael, do you have any proof that public school teachers have sexually abused children at a higher rate than priests?
LDL, no you haven’t taken up too much of our time today. It’s a hell of a Hobson’s Choice facing parishioners, and no one has ever stated it in such a sincere and heartfelt manner here.
Were the Church not already in dire straits because of many reasons other than the pedophile priest scandal and the institutional coverup, they would have no trouble weathering this. But, in areas where the Church once flourished, they have been steadily losing members, and closings of churches and schools have proceeded for the better part of 30 years.
While it is truly sad, those who were victimized by the Church should not now in some way be held up as those who have put the Church in this position. No, the people who put the Church in this position were those who committed these heinous acts and those who covered them up.
Having said that, there is real pain being felt by many whose ties to the Church are such an integral part of their lives. I don’t want to see that taken from them either. Ultimately, it will be up to the hierarchy to determine whether these institutions deserve to survive.
There is no perfect solution. But, denying long-delayed justice to the victims is not the way to go.
Dana, can’t say whether the rate is same, little higher, little lower(haven’t found a single source comparing rates)… but the volume:
There are approximately 46,000 Catholic priests in the United States and 300 cases filed to date, which is under .7% of the priesthood.
There are 3.2 million public school teachers (plus aides, administrators and other staff)
Total public school enrollment 49 million students.
———————–
•The Statistics of Teacher sexual abuse to Students
•The best estimate is that 15% of students will be sexually abused by a member of the school staff during their school career.
•Though, when the American Association of University Women Foundation surveyed more than 1,600 students in eighth through 11th grade, 25 percent of the girls and 10 percent of the boys who said they had been harassed or abused said the harasser was a school employee.
•The number of K-12 public and private school students in 1996 who have been or will be sexually abused by a member of the school staff is nearly 7 million of 51,331,000.
•Between 1% and 5% of teachers sexually abuse or harass students.
•At least a quarter of all school districts in the United States have dealt with a case of staff sexual abuse in the past ten years.
•Most cases of sexual abuse of students by teachers are never reported.
•In nearly half of the cases, suspects were accused of abusing more than one student.
•Only two cases were cases of false accusations; less than 1 percent of the cases studied.
•No type of school was immune to abuse: public or private, religious or secular, rich or poor, urban or rural.
•Responses to Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Students by Staff
•38.7% of the teachers resigned, left the district, or retired
•17.5% were spoken to informally
•15% were terminated or not re-hired
•11.3% received a formal verbal or written reprimand
•8.1% were suspended and then resumed teaching
•7.5% were cases where the superintendent determined that the teacher hadn’t meant to sexually abuse
•Of the nearly 54% of abusers who resigned, weren’t rehired, retired, or were terminated, superintendents reported that 16% were teaching in other schools and that they didn’t know what had happened to the other 84%. All but 1% of these teachers retained their teaching license.
from http://www.cpiu.us/statistics-2/
Ishmael: The General Assembly lifted the statute of limitations for both. If anyone came forward with old cases of abuse by public school teachers, I am unaware of them and they have not been found by the press.
The difference is that the church made a concerted effort to cover up the incidents. There has never been any allegation of which I’m aware of public schools doing the same. The cover-up is what prompted lifting the statute, and by cover-up I also mean the decision to settle many lawsuits back in the day with no-disclosure clauses. You’ll notice the civil agreements were reached without notification of criminal authorities.
By contrast, you’ll notice that there are several current cases in the Delaware criminal justice system of teachers or administrators being prosecuted for sexual relations with minors.
The General Assembly has no right to mandate the internal workings of private organizations. That notion is simple and basic.
A recent post stated that ‘ To me the notion is simple and basic, if you want to seek your party’s nomination, you first and foremost must be a member of that party.
The writer was correct on this point. Political parties are private organizations not public bodies and as such should make the rules and regulations that they abide by. You should be a member of that party to seek that parties nomination for office.
What House Bill 11 does is forbid political parties from nominating whomever they choose. On this point, the writer incorrect.
If the Green Party wants to nominate a libertarian, that should be their choice.
The General Assembly has no right to mandate the internal workings of private organizations.
John D. Flaherty, President
Delaware Coalition for Open Government