General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Weds., March 30, 2011
The picture emerging from Dover is that of a dispirited Senate Democratic Caucus and the State Senate as a whole. The ongoing DeLuca saga and the DeLuca/Peterson imbroglio is wearing on the body’s members. The News-Journal’s Chad Livengood blogs:
During an opening prayer, Sen. Robert Venables, D-Laurel, alluded to the Democratic caucus infighting between DeLuca and Sen. Karen Peterson, who has contended DeLuca uses his position as president pro tem “as a club” at the Department of Labor to do what he pleases…
“There’s certainly a lot of things going on that have created a lot of tension and discussions,” Venables said at the beginning of his prayer.
Senate Democrats invited Labor Secretary John McMahon into their closed-door meeting, but didn’t explain why. It’s unclear who invited McMahon to the meeting.
Might I respectfully suggest a solution? One that I suspect those savvy in the art of compromise (i.e. legislators) might embrace and may well be considering now. I would hope that there is a growing recognition that DeLuca is no longer credible as President Pro-Tempore, nor is he someone senators can defend to their constituents. Based on the comments coming from the caucus, it appears that many members blame Sen. Peterson for the acrimony at least as much as DeLuca. If they view DeLuca as politically radioactive, reach consensus by putting together a leadership team that reflects both camps, something like Blevins/Katz or Blevins/Sokola. It is not as if D senators from both the DeLuca and Peterson camps can’t work together, it’s just that the two indivudual adversaries have a history and mutual disdain that renders their battle toxic. While some in the DeLuca camp may resent the way that this issue has been escalated by the other side, they will need for their own electoral sake to grudgingly accept a compromise. For those in the Peterson camp who view this as a progressive vs. status quo battle, a compromise of this sort moves the ball closer to the goal line.
Perfect? No. Better? I say yes. And it puts the stress of this conflict mostly behind them.
Other than that, nothing of note took place in the Senate yesterday. Unless changes to the Frankford Town Charter get your juices flowing.
The House passed that Synthetic Cannaboids ban, sponsored by Sussex County’s Most Endangered Incumbent House member, Ruth Briggs King. Only John Kowalko voted no.
The House also unanimously passed SB 16(Sokola), which would help Delaware schools to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers by allowing schools to hire educators earlier. Since a House amendment was added to the bill, SB 16 returns to the Senate for a final vote. Look for it to head to the Governor’s office by week’s end.
Here is the entire Session Report for yesterday.
Today is committee meeting day, and SB 30, which would legalize civil unions, is today’s headliner. The hearing takes place at 2 p.m. in the Senate Chamber. I’ve predicted that, if the bill gets out of committee, I believe it will pass. So, today is a very important day. Some other highlights from today’s scheduled Senate committee meetings:
SB 24(Blevins) expands the role of the public guardian, and changes the appointing authority from Chancellor of Chancery Court to the Governor. On paper, it seems like an affirmative step to me. Read it and let me know what you think. The Public Guardian plays an important role in the protection of the elderly and the disabled. In today’s Senate Youth, Children & Families Committee.
Two controversial (to some) bills will be considered in today’s Senate Health & Social Services Committee. SB 12 (Henry) ‘removes the prohibition against persons convicted of any drug felony from receiving federal food benefit assistance.’ And SB 13 (Henry) makes permanent a pilot needle exchange program that was first established in 2006 and scheduled for ‘sunset’ after five years. I wonder which legislators will use the “This sends the wrong message” canard to oppose it. Bottom line: The program has proven successful, and it is in the interest of the public’s health to make it permanent.
The Senate Judiciary Commitee will consider HB 5 (Bennett), which ‘…set(s) a deadline when public bodies must provide a public record to a person making a request under the Freedom of Information Act’ ; and HB 19 (George), which among other revisions to Delaware’s drug laws, eliminates minimum mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenders. Only John Atkins voted ‘no’ in the House. Expect this bill to move through the Senate swiftly this year after the Diminutive Despot buried it in his Senate Executive Committee last session.
House committees are equally busy today.
The House Economic Development/Almost Everything Else Committee considers HB 54 (B. Short), which provides yet more regulatory relief for Delaware small business. I’ve expressed my ambivalence before, as I fear that there is a Chicago School of Economics meme (i.e. ‘from a cost-benefit analysis, it is better for 5K people to die in Pinto crashes than to assume the costs required to fix the defective parts’) in all this, but I’ll hold back for now as both John Kowalko and Dave Sokola are on the bill. Yes, sometimes even I partially judge a bill by its cosponsors.
The House Education Committee considers HB 42 (Scott), which ‘…requires the Department of Education to promulgate uniform regulations related to school discipline to provide consistency across all districts and charter schools.’ The committee also considers HS1/HB 23 (George), which tries to limit the amount of truancy in (and mostly out of) Delaware schools. Both worth checking out for those concerned about educational policy.
Department of Health & Social Services Secretary Rita Landgraf will discuss ‘the effects of recently-passed legislation’ in the House Health & Social Services Committee. I assume she’s talking about federal legislation, and that the presentation will not be upbeat.
The House House Administration Administration Committee Committee (think I’m seein’ double) considers legislation to provide for the popular election of the President. I strongly support this bill, but I’m not holding my breath for its passage.
A couple of (way too) modest bills concerning firearms and ammunition will be considered in the House Judiciary Committee. Wonder if even HB 46 (D. P. Williams) and HB 48 (Longhurst) will take on incoming fire from the NRA and the ‘Delaware Sportsmen’s Association’.
Well, quite a lineup. Coming tomorrow…Medical Marijuana!
El Som: What do you make of the DeLuca proposal to merge the three county vo-tech school districts into a single statewide district?
Dunno. There’s an angle there somewhere. There’s GOT to be an angle there somewhere. Vo-Tech/Construction Trades…somebody’s gonna make out just great.
Too busy prepping for my fantasy baseball draft to wrap what’s left of my mind around this. Wonder how Joe Booth feels about it? Yet another legislator who had a cushy job created just for him in the Sussex Vo-Tech District. Could he be Tony’s ace-in-the-hole?
Left out of your usually thorough review is HB 29, which would create a needless impediment to implementing statewide recycling in Delaware. It’s up before the House Natural Resources Committee, and deserves to stay right there.
http://www.tommywonk.com/2011/03/recycling-opponents-try-again-in-house.html
My guess is that a single district would be controlled by the Dems, which would leave Booth, or future Booths, out in the cold.
I know that I am probably in the minority here, but I do not want to mess with the Electoral College in the way that Rep. Williams (suburban) is suggesting in the National Popular Vote bill. The current system prevents us small states from being ignored. The disproportionate weighting in the Electoral College increases our voting strength and decreases the impact of larger state like Texas and Florida. I prefer the EC reforms that have been enacted by Nebraska and Maine where EC votes are handed out according to the Congressional District results.
El, is there any data showing the needle exchange program has lowered the AIDS or hepatitis rate since it became law?
There IS data at the national level demonstrating such a linkage. Whether there is at the state level, I’m not sure, and I’m headed to work soon, so I won’t be able to check it out before then. For starters, though, here’s an excerpt from one of the bill’s ‘whereas’ clauses:
WHEREAS, numerous federal government studies had demonstrated that the rate of new HIV cases caused by injection drug use could be cut by 30% using needle exchange programs; that needle exchange programs had become part of a larger AIDS prevention strategy by providing HIV testing, health counseling, information on the dangers of contracting AIDS by engaging in high risk behaviors, and the importance of protecting oneself from HIV infection; that needle exchange programs had proven not to increase the number of needles in the community and could even potentially reduce the number of discarded needles on the streets; and that needle exchange programs had been endorsed by numerous medical and other prominent organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the US Conference of Mayors, the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, the World Health Organization, the American Pharmaceutical Association, the National Association of Board of Pharmacy, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, and the National Association of Social Workers;
But a fiscal note is not required for this bill, so there would be no negative fiscal impact to the state to continue the program, and logic dictates that clean needles=less infections.
While I might agree with some of your response, why should the state taxpayers pay for a City of Wilmington program?
@anon – because HIV, AIDS and hepatitis, like most other diseases, don’t know the difference between the boundries of the City of Wilmington and the rest of the state of Delaware?
that stuff SPREADS!
Merging the three vo-tech districts would create a monster.
Think of the vo-techs as forerunners to charter schools: draining the district schools of resources, bypassing the referendum process that districts must fact, with school boards that are not popularly elected, whose mission is to skim the cream from, and weaken, the district schools. They’ve gone far beyond their original vocational mission and carry a full college-prep roster of courses, in many cases broader than the district schools. They hire veteran teachers from the district schools to help them recruit the cream, including athletes to help build the brand.
Unlike charter schools, they have the weight of the General Assembly and a bipartisan cast of nefarious supporters. The vo-tech schools have fine personnel and graduates, but unlike their analogues in other states, they have become instruments in weakening district schools.
Leaving aside the foolishness of whether or not “weakening” the traditional school districts is a legitimate concern — those of us who took their kids out of public schools are accused of the same thing, John, so I’m inclined to tell people with such “concerns” to get stuffed — the vo-tech schools are not, as you point out, meeting their supposed mission (which is NOT to skim cream; that’s the inevitable mission once schools are judged by student test scores).
My solution would be to dispose of the vo-tech districts entirely. Many states simply attach vo-tech schools to regular districts, but of course most states have more local control of schools than Delaware does. Delaware’s vo-techs are supposed to provide vocational/technical training and education, and currently have twice as many applicants as seats. As John notes, they are NOT supposed to be offering college prep classes.
In addition to veteran teachers, they hire way more than their share of useless legislators, from Sharp to Booth. Get rid of ’em.
Some of the comments here suggest that we don’t realize that a lot has changed about vo-tech schools since these districts were established in 1968. Back then, vo-techs were meant to train kids to get out of high school and get jobs laying bricks, fixing cars or cooking decent meals at the Howard Johnson’s.
These days, we know that kids who go straight from high school to the work force aren’t likely to be making a decent middle-class living (if there is such a thing) 10 years later. So vo-tech grads should figure on going to college (if only for 2 years at DelTech) and they’re going to need some college prep classes to learn anything there (or they’ll have to take remedial classes at DelTech, which is another mammoth waste of taxpayer dollars).
Where I’m heading here is that we need, as a state, to be rethinking how the vo-techs fit with the rest of the system. And the answer, I believe, is that we should indeed be consolidating the vo-tech districts — but not with each other. Rather, the vo-tech schools should be merged into county-wide districts as part of a much larger consolidation.
In fact, the vo-tech kids need much stronger academic programs than they have been getting. And their building design may make them better equipped to offer classes in the STEM disciplines that are now getting increased emphasis.
With one district for each county, school boards would be better situated to develop varied programs that better meet student needs, without the sniping about how the vo-techs, the charters, the magnets, etc., are pulling all the good kids out of the regular high schools.
“These days, we know that kids who go straight from high school to the work force aren’t likely to be making a decent middle-class living (if there is such a thing) 10 years later.”
What you “know” apparently comes from reading a bunch of statistics correlating education with earnings, without taking into account the jobs at hand.
Did you ever consider that maybe the situation you decry has something to do with the fact that we aren’t training plumbers, electricians, car mechanics and masons at the vo-tech schools any more? I know several people in each of those trades, and they all — without having attended college — make more than I did at any stage of my white-collar career. I also know several people in the construction trades who attended some college, often without getting a degree. Most studied something unrelated to what they do today, making their years in college nothing beyond a sunk cost, an extended, expensive break between high school and career.
I’m not against charters and magnets skimming, because — why can’t anyone remember this? — education is about kids, not about comparing schools. If good students think they’re better served in those schools, they should get that choice. Vo-techs, OTOH, are supposed to serve kids without aptitude for scholastic pursuits and get them ready for the work force. If some of them want to become cooks and hairdressers, why shouldn’t we give them that education? Because you don’t think those trades pay enough?
A frightening number of students drop out of school because they’re not learning anything and are bored. Teach them a trade, even a humble one, and maybe they’ll stick around until graduation.
Leaving aside the foolishness of whether or not “weakening” the traditional school districts is a legitimate concern …
When the state creates a structure that erodes the quality of schools that serve the vast majority of its students, this creates a significant policy issue. Mediawatch makes the good suggestion that vo-tech schools should be part of, not doing battle with, the conventional school districts. This worked well for Brown Tech, which complemented WHS, PS and Howard, and has been a good model elsewhere.
The NCC Vo-Tech District has been a force beyond control for years. It annexed Howard HS in plain view in 1978. Around the same time, it began aggressive sports recruitment at Delcastle to build the brand. A decade later, it created Hodgson in face of opposition from DPI. As Geezer notes, the vo-tech schools are desirable alternatives to some schools that have too little money or too many at-risk students, but the vo-tech schools are contributing to an erosion at all schools, and have gotten away with it by canny, sometimes politicized hiring.
In terms of the issue at hand, Geezer, John Manifold and I are really not far apart. We may differ slightly in our perception of what the vo-techs are accomplishing, and should be accomplishing, in preparing students for life after high school — and that’s something state education officials, with public input, should be evaluating.
However, given the maneuvering, political and otherwise, of the vo-tech districts and the silliness of having a “district” that consists of only one school, the better approach to consolidation would be to place the vo-techs within county-wide districts that offer comprehensive K-12 programs.
JM and MW: If you’ll look at my earlier comments, you’ll see that attaching the vo-techs to the regular districts is exactly the solution I proposed, too.
What dismays and frustrates me is this mentality that treats every attempt to break out of the “traditional” school model as a threat to public education as a whole. No offense to you two, who are two of the most thoughtful commenters on DL (I say that because I tend to be offensive even when I don’t mean to), but I don’t see how we’ll ever improve public education if our basic position is defensive.
For example, John brings up the concern that losing the best students “erodes the quality of schools.” How? The job of the schools is to teach the children who attend. Your comment reveals what everybody knows but hates to acknowledge — good students get better test scores, which makes the teacher, the school and the district look better, without actually being better. We are now 15 years down the wrong path of standardized testing and “accountability.” The further down that path we go, the worse our results will be, because the focus is rarely where it should be — on the students.
Regarding Needle Exchange – it has proven very effective. Below is a link to report and an excerpt. This has also been powerful testimony at JFC and other hearings from people who connected to treatment through this program and are now sober and pursing jobs, education, and connecting with their families.
http://www.delawarehiv.org/docs/NeedleExchangeWhitePaper-Sept.2010.doc
Successes
Delaware’s NEP has been extremely effective. Within affected communities, there have been exceptionally high levels of cooperation and support of the program and no negative publicity or reactions. Client participation has increased steadily as a result of the distribution of printed materials and presentations to community groups, police officers, City Council, and various other partners, with referrals coming from all partners, including local law enforcement. The program maintains extensive records on both NEP participants and community residents who use services on the NEP van. While current statistics exceed goals in almost all categories of performance, DPH estimates that it will not be until year four or five that a direct link between the pilot NEP and HIV/AIDS reduction can be shown conclusively in Delaware.
The successes of the pilot NEP—in numbers and design— are documented below, from program inception through the end of state fiscal year 2010 (February 2007 – June 30, 2010), as follows:
Successes from February 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010
General Programmatic Successes:
Clients enrolled 829
Needles exchanged and incinerated 54,000+
HIV and Other Disease Prevention Services:
Rapid HIV screenings provided to NEP clients 390
Rapid HIV screenings provided to community members not in NEP 1,864
People tested for the first time for HIV 179
People newly diagnosed with HIV and enrolled into care 16 (9 NEP clients, 7 community members)
NEP clients reporting reduced needle sharing 28.6% versus 15% goal
NEP clients enrolled in substance abuse treatment programs 63% (130 of 206 referred)
HIV-infected individuals who were re-connected with HIV treatment services 11
Design Successes
Model Program Design Delaware’s NEP operates differently from many other NEPs while using the best features of some of them.
Effective Administration and Oversight DPH administers the NEP, in cooperation with an Oversight Committee inclusive of key partners in the program.
Professional Operational Management The NEP is operated currently by treatment professionals with expertise and close working relationships with other local treatment programs, enabling streamlined referrals to higher levels of care.
Partnerships The NEP partners with City of Wilmington Public Safety Department, Christiana Care Health Services, grassroots community organizations, local non-profits, Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health, and the faith community.
Enrollment in Treatment The NEP refers clients directly to drug and medical treatment programs—not simply crisis services.
Community Engagement The NEP uses the Indigenous Leader Outreach Model to engage and retain community involvement in support and services.
Membership Recruitment The NEP employs a model social networking strategy, which encourages membership of participants: 65% of all clients (454) were referred by other clients (versus 20% goal)
Positive Relationship With Law Enforcement The program nurtures a positive relationship with local law enforcement through on-going reporting, updating, and education. Law enforcement itself has referred five people to the program.
Safety of Law Enforcement Personnel NEP supplies needle-resistant gloves to law enforcement personnel to help reduce needle stick injuries.
Cost Effectiveness
NEPS have been shown to be a cost-effective and cost-saving strategy for reducing HIV transmission.4 The lifetime cost of prescriptions and medical treatment for one HIV-positive person—exclusive of supportive services costs—is estimated to be as high as $618,000.33 The cost of preventing HIV infection among one of the highest at-risk populations in Delaware through NEPs is substantially less—approximately $230,500 annually for the current NEP. Conservatively allowing that connecting to treatment each of the 16 persons who found they were HIV-infected as a result of NEP testing prevents just one additional person being infected, the program potentially has saved $9,888,000 in prescription and medical treatment funding—exclusive of supportive services costs. These savings do not include the potential savings from all other persons who reduced their risky behavior for becoming infected or transmitting HIV, as well as other blood-borne diseases, as a result of NEP services. It is evident from these figures that NEPs are a cost effective prevention measure in the fight against blood-borne illnesses transmitted through injecting drug use.
Thanks, Debbie. I really appreciate the empirical information. At this point, there is little but uninformed prejudice to oppose the continuation of this program.
Wrong as usual. The government created the problem by inhibiting the sale of needles then wants to create a bureaucracy to give them to drug addicts at the cost of 230K a year. So the majority not in the program suffer. People who want to have safety kits in case someone has an allergic attack; Traveling Diabetics who have an unexpected stop over or delay; all face barriers to normal living while the state gives needles to people breaking the law.
If you let people buy their own needles, it wouldn’t cost us anything. Sharing would drop far more because the majority of addicts are not showing up between 9 and 3 to get needles. By their own reporting the vast majority of the addict population is not being served, but that is considered success because they thought they would be even more ineffective.
I am glad the program has some success stories. We would have far more real success by just getting government out of the way and putting the money into treatment availablity not to mention the benefit of not sending dual messages about the use of hard drugs.
@ David – really ? do you know so little? yet expound like you know what you are talking about? and spread even more mis-information>
Diabetics use a subcutaneous needle that has a different length and gauge from the needle that a drug addict uses. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
people with severe allergies carry an Epi-pen, again a sub-cutaneous needle, that again has a different diameter and depth from any other type needle, but in reality is closer to a diabetc needle
a drug addict uses a needle used to shot the drug into the vein, its an intravenous needle, it is longer and a different diameter from the other two- like the needle used to take a blood sample – which in turn is different from an IM (intra-muscular) needle, a needle used to shoot into the muscle.
are you really that ignorant of medical fact that these needles all have absolutely nothing to do with each other, are in NO way compatable and certainly not inter-changable, like you would like to lead others to believe?
at the very least do some research before you post the absolute idiocy you posted above.
if a drug addict uses a sub-q needle to shoot up, and shoots into the skin or muscle tissue, they suffer SEVERE medical consequences and may actually loose the arm or appendage they shot up into.
and people dont have “allergic attacks”, we are not talking about sniffles from hayfever here, they suffer anaphylatic shock and die from a severe allergic REACTION.
at some point I hoped you had at least some intelligence,or would at least research something you were not familiar with – but you really out did yourself this time David. ANY credibility you may have had left just got wiped out.
David = wrong as usual.