Sunday Open Thread [3.18.12]

Comments (6)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. El Somnambulo says:

   March 18, 2012 at 11:02 am

   I highly recommend Cris Barrish’s story on the John Atkins tire-burning incident in today’s News Journal.

   Atkins appears to have at least as many enablers as Whitney Houston, and he needs them to cover up his serial bad boy behavior.

   Wonder if anything will happen to that Georgetown Fire chief who covered up the tire burning.

   Wondering how much longer Pete Schwartzkopf can continue to enable someone who places himself above the law he’s sworn to uphold.

   And wondering how long the House Democratic Caucus can continue to look the other way.

   Nothing happened in caucus last week to Atkins after he basically pulled rank on the state police. Wonder if this week will be any different…

   Hey, maybe the Sussex County Sheriff, using his ‘police’ powers, could arrest both Atkins and the Fire Chief, and the Klown Kar would be completely full. And then the lot of ’em could get pulled over for speeding.

2. Nancy Willing says:

   March 18, 2012 at 11:37 am

   I was in Dover last Wednesday observing the House Admin Committee chaired by Pete Schwartzkopt. John Flaherty sat next to me and said he was going to ask the Chair why Kowalko/JJ Johnson’s HB 126 (expanding FOIA for UD and DSU) had not gotten a committee hearing pursuant to the House rules which say every bill is entitled to a hearing in committee within a certain number of days after filing.

   Schwartzkopf brushed off John’s request to speak at the end of the meeting saying he didn’t want to hold up members but would talk to John afterward. That was where it got interesting.

   John ended up telling Pete that he was no better than Tom Sharp when he ran the Senate and kept bills locked up in desk drawers. Pete was annoyed as hell and growled that the sponsors could get the bill out of committee if they got enough signatures.

   Pete said he had no intention of giving the bill a hearing because he had it on good authority that the parties were actively working on the issues (I doubt that UD, DSU are happily meeting with Kowalko and Johnson on this). He said why would he hold a hearing and therein pre-empt the issue when the parties are working on it privately?

   I will be writing a post on the event – hopefully with some clarity from the sponsors on whether or not they are actually, as Schwartzkopf claims, “working this out in private”.

   ~
   from the inbox – Carl Shields wrote:
   Over 200 signatures for our petition in support of Delaware House Bill 126.
   We as tax-payers, donors, parents, students, faculty, alumni, unions, legislators, shareholders and supporters should expect no less.
   Wade Malcolm’s January 22, 2012 delawareonline article “UD, DSU evade openness,” explains why our expectations have not been met. http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20120122/NEWS/201220337/UD-DSU-evade-openness?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

   “It [the University of Delaware] conducts most meetings of its board of trustees in private, so that public votes merely rubber-stamp secret meetings where the real debate occurred.”
   From the Introduction to the Citizens Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act, published by the House Committee on Government Reform, September 2005: “With the passage of the FOIA, the burden of proof shifted from the individual to the government. Those seeking information are no longer required to show a need for information. Instead, the “need to know” standard has been replaced by a “right to know” doctrine. The government now has to justify the need for secrecy.”

3. Andy says:

   March 19, 2012 at 6:59 am

   The News Journal is reporting that HB 251 which will lower the cost of Oil LIghtering in the Delaware Bay has passsed the House. This was introduced by Rep Longhurst and will lower the cost from $100,000.00 to $75.00 for Overseas Shipholding Group the only company allowed to provide this service to the oil companies due to the Coastal Zone Act. Lightering moves oil from a tanker unable to navigate the Delaware River due to depth to Barges and other tankers. The Transportation Trust Fund Committee as one of their recomendation wanted to raise this fee. Ironic another break for big oil yet there are some in the state that would cut public transit servce to the most vulnerable such as seniors, folks on dialysis,the developmentaly disabled, and others who use the para transit service to go to work and other appointments. They want to do this to close a funding gap in the tranportation trust fund.

4. Nancy Willing says:

   March 19, 2012 at 8:18 am

   There’s a history behind the lightering fee. It was first introduced as a tax (a buck a barrell). That met with ferocious resistance and a reported series of threats against the bill’s sponsor, Rep Oberle.

   The fee we have now was a compromise orchestrated by Gov. Markell.

   Perhaps the legislature should wait to see if there is any postive change in the fate of the upriver refineries before further reducing this income.

   http://delawareliberal.net//2010/05/04/delaware-general-assembly-post-game-wrap-uppre-game-show-tuesday-may-4-2010/#comment-186542

5. Andy says:

   March 19, 2012 at 8:48 am

   I find it odd that Transit was condemned during recent contract arbitration hearings for causing a deficit to the TTF yet they can lower a tax for a monopoly that contributes to the same fund, and the solution is to cut service and raise fares. BTW during those same arbitration hearings OMB Director Ann Visali never mentioned any of the mismanagement of DELDOT property or funds that has been talked about in the news media.

6. Nancy Willing says:

   March 20, 2012 at 9:08 am

   The early reporting out of the DEFAC meeting yesterday indicated we are 28 million behind from December predictions in revenue. If so, we sure can’t spare even the 100K from the oil lightering monopoly.