State of the Treasurer’s Office
Just over a month ago, Chip Flowers was sworn in at the Treasurer of the State of Delaware. Since that time, he has started fulfilling campaign promises. He has a way to go, but hey, it’s been a month.
One of his suggestions was a regular report of Delaware’s economic situation. The idea was to make the Treasurer’s office a watchdog of local economic indices to provide guidance to officials and the public. On February 3rd, the first edition of this report was issued. Personally, I’d rather the report be issued in HTML than in PDF format, but they don’t ask me. But if you look at the link, the report (The Delaware Economic Index) is an excellent thumbnail sketch of where the state is economically and how we are progressing in our recovery.
This week, Flowers released a document called The Report on the Delaware State Treasury. Again, the damn thing is a PDF, but I can hope that it gets better. I do find it a bit irksome that the document refers to “the People” like some sort of bizarre cult. Perhaps Chip is trying to get in good with the Tea Partiers (pssst.. Chip, you got no shot with those people).
Anyway, the document is a bit of a “good news, bad news” report detailing the baseline of the Treasurer’s office. The good news is that the employees are good, the revenue is good, the AAA bond rating is good. The bad news is that Chip wants a couple of big honkin’ flat screens to have CNBC running 24×7 to monitor the markets (currently, they just have a single analog TV with rabbit ears. So in Dover, that means that you can only watch Springer and Maury Povich). Also, the 23 people that work for the Treasurer, while great people, are too few in number. It’ll be interesting to see where that issue goes with the Legislature.
Oddly, there is a section called “Security” that has been redacted because of the sensitive nature of it. The full report is being made available to the legislature. But since it appears in the “bad news” section, I can only assume that it means that Charles Potter still has a key to the building.
Finally, the document ends with a list of stuff that Flowers wants to accomplish as Treasurer and the status of those bullet points. I’ll be interested to see how these progress as his term rolls on.
Also, a little birdie has told me that there are some other things afoot with Chip. Apparently, he has scheduled a meeting with the Public Integrity Commission in March to discuss how to properly ensure that he doesn’t violate any public trusts when talking to clients that work with his law firm. I guess it’s good to get ahead of these things and try to draw bright lines that can’t be crossed.
Tags: Chip Flowers, State Treasurer
I like Flowers out of the gate, but he needs to get his sock puppet problems under control.
True that.
I’m interested in the Treasurer’s changed mission. Here is the new one.
Here is Markell’s. (I couldn’t find Jones-Potter’s, but if I remember it was very similar.) FYI, the old one seems to follow the law more that the current one.
Is the Office really one in which people need to make their mark? It seems to me that Carper and Markel didn’t see the need to reinvent the job.
I suspect that all three of them “follow the law.” But the question is more about what does the Treasurer do above and beyond that? For Markell, it was starting the Delaware Money School. Jones-Potter was pretty similar, with a good deal of outreach to schools.
I suspect that Chip will keep up with the Money School (although it is a non-profit, not a state program), but I wonder if policies where he keeps Delaware’s money in Delaware banks is a form of stimulus for the state that doesn’t really cost us anything.
No doubt liberalgeek that Flowers will follow the law. I wouldn’t expect anything less. But a mission statement is about how an organization is suppose to complete its goals. If not, all those hours of corporate training have been a waste. Unless, of course, if Flowers is going to change the definition of a mission statement. 😉
Bonus points for ‘irksome’. But, couldn’t you have shown ‘ilk’ some love?
Speaking of “ilk,” that peerless phrasemaker Russell Baker once wrote of Roberto Alomar:
“He is ill bred, this Roberto Alomar, not to mention ill mannered, ill informed, ill equipped, ill kempt, ill spoken, ill educated and other ills of that ilk.”
Read it if you want to see a master demonstrate how to denounce a public figure, though there is no mention of “irksome.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/12/opinion/putting-in-the-boot.html
Sorry if this is a bit off topic.
I should have known Tommy is a Russell Baker fan. I bet he reads Benchley too.
His momma read him Thurber while he was still in the crib.
Which perhaps explains why he learned to leap out of cribs at such an early age.
Yes to Benchley. My early literature was more along the lines of Dr. Seuss. Thurber came later.
Serious question. Do we really need this office? Isn’t it something that can be folded into other existing offices and thereby save the state a boatload of cash in salaries and benefits among other savings?
El Som,
I’m not sure what you are hearing but I’ve heard that Treasurer Flowers irked a few folks on the JFC. The c.w. among some of the folks I’ve heard from is that he has to display his efforts to accomplish his campaign rhetoric, but that eventually the Delaware Code and the State Constitution will catch up with him. Then he can settle down and do the job. Which will probably be pretty boring for him.
I applaud Chip’s efforts to use his office to it’s maximum potential. He pledged to the voters that he would work actively to improve economic situation-and he’s beginning to carry out that pledge.
By going above and beyond with his efforts, he’s bound to “irk” a few people. Well, tough.
Chip is a great person, and we’re lucky to have him working for us.
Jim
Didn’t both candidates for Treasurer pledge to use the office as a bully pulpit? The people have spoken on which kind of sermon they want to hear from the Treasurer.
Jason, what is the problem with people seeking to make their mark in elected office? Is that not a good thing for it provides a greater incentive to perform well? Elected offices are not trophies to admire on your shelf for 4 years. They are a sacred trust given to a select few for a specified period and require individuals blessed with such positions to go above and beyond to provide the maximum benefits to the people who elevated them to elected office. Well, at least this is my theory.
Liberalgeek you are correct. Has anyone even read the Code? What Flowers wants to do is perfectly legal. The fundamental duties of the state treasurer are narrow but with creative thinking the traditional powers of the treasurer can be used to achieve innovate, greater results. It is interesting to me how often Chip is criticized for seeking an expansion of the role of the treasurer. Wasn’t Matt Denn feted, and then promoted, for creatively enhancing the insurance commissioner’s office? In the 08′ gubernatorial race part of the argument in favor of Markell was he expanded his office’s role to do more and Carney did not. What changed since 2008 to make governmental inertia a virtue for such offices?
With respect to the issue of abolishing the office, it is a myth that doing so would result in massive savings for taxpayers. The treasurer’s office may vanish but it functions would not. In practice, essentially all abolishing the office would do is eliminate the salaries of the treasurer and deputy treasurer. Even some of those savings would never been realized since wherever those functions wound up, presumably the Finance Department or the auditor’s office (rebranded as the “Comptroller” a la Texas, which did abolish the position of state treasurer), would require additional support staff to absorb the additional workload. You cannot fold the treasurer’s office into the Finance Department, for instance, and not need additional help for the Secretary of Finance to carry out the increased workload. There at minimum would be a need for someone to head the wing of the department engaged in the work previously done by the treasurer’s office. That person would essentially be what the deputy treasurer is today. Really, all abolishing the office would save is the $110,000 salary of the state treasurer. It should not simply be a matter of dollars and cents, though. We should resist the temptation to fetishize the size of and cost of government without any regard to the effectiveness of government like the Republicans do.
A stronger argument, in my view, can be made for making statewide offices appointed. In New Jersey every statewide official is appointed except the governor and the lieutenant governor, an office which did not even exist until 2009. One can argue appointed officials tend to be on average more qualified than elected officials, they arguably are more accountable since they report to and work at the pleasure of the governor as opposed to being insulated for 4 years. The arguments in favor of electing people to offices like lieutenant governor, state treasurer, and state auditor is it gives input to the people, allows greater checks and balances on the governor, encourages creativity given that people seeking these offices are forced to come up with a policy platform to present to the people, and arguably results in greater responsiveness since they have to at all times keep their eyes on the voters, not just the governor.
I favor the current system, except perhaps in the case of the attorney general. The power to prosecute is the power to destroy. It can be dangerous to give those powers to an ambitious individual seeking higher office. It can work for good, as it did when Eliot Spitzer took on Wall Street as AG, but if any statewide office should be appointed it should be the AG’s office given the unique possibilities for mischief that office provides.
Auntie Dem, from what I have heard the JFC was very favorable toward Flowers, particularly key members of the committee.
I agree, Jim. It is refreshing to see a politician who is fulfilling his campaign promises. (I hope to see you join the ranks of such elected officials in the future!)
Strange that you focused on my “mark” comment and not the the “sock” one.
Strange that you focused on a personal attack and not the substance of my post. What is your definition of “sock”? Let’s see your definition and hear your case to support your accusation. Surely you believe in providing evidence to support charges that are leveled.
Whatever socky.
Evidence? Purpose? Identity? Of course, first, I am dying to know your definition of “sock.” I know the internet can be a difficult place and often the easy exit strategy is to revert back to elementary school and level an insult and walk away, but progressives on a blog dedicated to discourse should aspire to a higher level.
Sock,
I’m not interested in discourse with someone who sounds like he is on the Flowers payroll. Get it? I happen to like the guy, so trust me when I tell you that you are not doing him any favors.
Why do I sound like I am on Flowers’ payroll? Let’s see this exquisite analysis. Besides, how many people are even on his payroll now that the campaign is over? (Chip himself just slipped me a piece of paper with this talking point) You are naive if you think a statewide official is obsessed with a blog entry and, in a state of panic, deployed one lieutenant (oh, how many “socks” does big, bad Chip have floating in this thread? Maybe Chip has someone under your bed too!) to post a response.
I am a progressive in practice, not a closed-minded individual using Republican tactics seeking to stifle open debate because I am bitter towards Chip for some reason. Yet you have the audacity to quote RFK lol…
Hey, since you failed to provide a definition thus far I will help you out by showing you how it is done.
Mc·Car·thy·ism
noun
mə-ˈkär-thē-ˌi-zəm also -ˈkär-tē-
Definition of MCCARTHYISM
: a mid-20th century political attitude characterized chiefly by opposition to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges; broadly : defamation of character or reputation through such tactics
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mccarthyism
“McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s and characterized by heightened fears of communist influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, “McCarthyism” soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
Do you need me to go further and make the case that you are engaging in McCarthyesque tactics?
It is corny dude. Just bring it down a notch. Two notches.
Wow, so evidently you are keeping a file of my posts as well!
So your argument essentially is the following:
1) I support Chip Flowers
2) Therefore I must be paid by Chip Flowers
Let’s continue this game. You supported Chris Coons, right? Therefore, using your logic, you must have been paid by Coons!
Flowers received 153,203 votes in the general yet if one person supports him on a blog they must be paid by him (Through his non-existent political action committee? Through his defunct campaign? Does he pay me to work at his law firm to post on blogs? Did he appoint me deputy treasurer?)?
So I take that to mean that you are going to ignore my friendly advice. Well I tried.
You attacked my credibility without any evidence and violated the spirit of blog’s policy against “outing” individuals. See, one problem with throwing charges of someone being on Chip Flower’s payroll is Chip isn’t Tom Carper, Jack Markell, or John Carney. He has barely been on the political scene. He has a small number of aides. When it is said that I am on Chip’s payroll you are accusing me of being one of a handful of individuals. (The already short list grows even shorter when one remembers his campaign is defunct and he has no political action committee.) Surely you can see the problems that raises…
You also are accusing Chip of ordering a lieutenant to promote propaganda on a blog. That is quite a stretch. Do you run around accusing Markell, Denn, Carney, and Coons of doing this when you see one or two people praising or defending them here? No, because you can grasp them having actual supporters yet somehow cannot conceive of someone who received 150,000+ votes having a supporter or two.
Here are some possible scenarios:
1) I am one of the 150,000+ people who voted for Flowers.
2) I know Flowers through work, a civic association, etc.
3) I am a friend of Flowers.
4) I had a bad day, Flowers took me out for ice cream.
5) I had a flat tire, Flowers stopped on the side of the road and changed it.
6) I was broke, was complaining about it and Flowers somehow found out about it and sent me a check.
7) I work for Flowers.
You took the worst possible scenario for the calculated nefarious aim of diminishing my credibility. How about seeking to diminish the arguments I make instead of baseless accusations that probably violate the blog’s rules?
Like I said, I tried. If you want to go around sounding like someone who is on the Flowers payroll, be my guest.
Jefferson: You’re protesting too much. If you’re going to react like this every time someone points out that you’re gushing, Jason is right — you’re doing Chip more harm than good. That’s true whether or not Chip has any idea of who you are.
Geezer, I think you finally shut him up. Holy crap.
You just fail to understand the truly historic scope of what Treasurer Flowers is trying to accomplish. As he writes, calling upon the spirit and language of our great Founders: Upon the State Treasurer entering the People’s Treasury, the vision and mission of the office were not tailored to meet the challenges required of a 21st century financial organization. The prior vision and mission, though relevant for earlier times, no longer captures the essence of the People’s Treasury’s role in the modern era.
You just fail to understand how laughable you sound. This sort of hyperbole sounds just as absurd coming from you as it does from a Tea Partier.
He’s the fucking Treasurer, for heaven’s sake — a job Velda Potter managed to discharge working part time. This kind of grandiose self-importance is Chip’s biggest flaw, and it will keep him from getting anything done in office if he doesn’t dial it back. ON a scale of 1 to 10, the “Jefferson-Madison” posts are about a 25. Scale it back to 11, will you please?
We need to demand less of our elected officials. They are doing too much, and it is frightening. I mean, I know we were asking for energy and transparency, but this is simply too much communication. It simply isn’t done.
We prefer the old way where the Treasurer’s opponent could run a snarky campaign claiming you didn’t do anything for four years. It is comfortable for us here in Delaware. Stand down, Sir!
Geezer, I respect you and I think you have a point and I will keep it mind in the future.
Regarding Madison, that account obviously is a parody account.
While I have had a general feeling of good will about Treasurer Flowers, Jefferson and Madison are now giving me the impression that he is a delusional ego manic.
Madison is obviously a parody (of me).
That quotation is from the Treasurer’s report mentioned above. It is not mine. The language does call both upon history and the language of our Founders.
Man this thread has deteriorated.