General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Weds., June 19, 2013
The Great Grubby Gold Rush of 2013 has begun. Millions for an Archmere mansion(?), $8 mill for racinos w/no strings attached(?), more $$’s down the aglands preservation rabbit hole(?), $2.2 mill to buy a Sussex hunting preserve(?). A disproportionate number of these requests for downstate projects. The News-Journal covers it here. And the racino $8 mill rationalizations here. Enjoy (or despair of) Bloviator Colin Bonini’s contradictions within mere paragraphs of each other. Must be Bond Bill time.
The idea of giving $8 mill to the racinos that were already given legal monopoly status with no licensing fees and slot machines video lotteries subsidized by the state is brain-dead. What other casinos in this country received such a sweetheart deal? As Al Mascitti pointed out on our show yesterday, it’s not our fault that idiots at Dover Downs somehow decided that theirs would be a ‘destination resort’ that required hotels and restaurants. Nothing says destination resort quite like anonymous concrete strip malls and traffic lights every 20 feet. Why in hell should they get even a penny of bailout money? In this case, true to Markell form, this lame cash dump doesn’t even require the racinos to forestall layoffs, which is just what they’re threatening to do if they don’t get relief. Markell is simply doubling-down on someone else’s bad bet. With our money. Let’s see…$8 mill earmarked for racinos, $7.5 mill pissed away on agland preservation, you could more than pay for a 1% increase for state employees with that money. Jack, Jack?
The House passed ‘transgender equality’ legislation yesterday with a House amendment, meaning that the bill must survive one more Senate vote. Here’s the roll call. Jaques was a yes, and Paradee was a no. The rest of the votes were pretty true to form. Actually, Paradee has become predictable in his votes, which makes him one of the biggest disappointments in the General Assembly. I think he sold us a phony bill of goods. Fortunately, it comes with a 2-year return policy.
The Senate unanimously passed SB 116(Cloutier), which seeks to provide emergency help for those suffering from a drug or alcohol overdose while lessening the fear of criminal prosecution. I cannot imagine a bill like this passing in the days of Jim Vaughn, Thurman Adams and Tom Sharp. In other words, we’ve made progress.
You knew it was coming. What’s unfortunate is that it’s probably necessary. I’m talking about SB 140(Venables), which allows complaints from employees of medical centers that perform invasive surgeries (aka abortions). When you see Sen. Blevins on the bill as a co-sponsor, you know that support for this crosses the ideological spectrum.
Here is the entire session report for Tuesday.
The President Pro-Tem has placed the transgender equality bill at the top of today’s Senate Agenda. This is standard operating procedure when a bill returns from the other house with an amendment. Here’s hoping that all 11 Senate yes votes remain intact this time around. I also really like SB 104(Poore), which adds the Public Advocate to the list of public officials who have to make financial disclosures.
I don’t like SB 72(Ennis), which expands the “purpose of the Special Law Enforcement Assistance Fund so that law-enforcement agencies can obtain and devote resources to enhance the suppression, investigation and prosecution of criminal activity, promote officer safety, facilitate the training of law enforcement personnel, further public education and community awareness and improve victim services.” The bill also creates an advisory board to make recommendations that would be exempt from FOIA. So, what you have here is a special slush fund under the joint control of the AG, the Governor, and the General Assembly, with the group making recommendations on who should get the money being exempt from FOIA. One of the worst bills of the session. Will any legislator dare to challenge this?
Last Wednesday was the final day that the House exclusively devoted to committee meetings. So today we have the first Wednesday House Agenda of the session. We have a couple of bills increasing minimum mandatories for certain firearms offenses, HB 73(Mitchell) and HB 36(Briggs King). We have legislation assisting our wineries, craft distilleries and microbreweries. BTW, that’s a Delaware economic success story. HB 95(Heffernan) would enable the state to try to recover costs for toxic waste cleanups from the property owners who refused to clean up their own mess. HB 163(Bennett) “requires the Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families to create and maintain a developmentally appropriate, comprehensive program that fully integrates independent living services from ages 14 to 21 and which will assist youth with their successful transition into adulthood.” Rep. Baumbach’s valuable manufactured homes bills, HB 106 and HB 107, are also on today’s agenda.
Just because there is no official committee day doesn’t mean that there are no committee meetings today. Featuring some juicy bills. So, let’s take a look. Starting with the House:
Hmmm, somebody must be spreading around some campaign cash. HB 118(Bolden) ‘would permit alcoholic beverage license holders to hold up to 3 retail licenses from the current 2 that was established as of April 1992.’ Total Wines throwing their weight around again? In the House Business Lapdog Committee.
Well, lookee here. The racinos are getting a new revenue stream, not that they talk about it. HB 174(Barbieri) ‘provides that a portion of the proceeds from the Internet table games will support harness and horse racing purses at the same percentages that they are supported by slots at the casinos’. In today’s House Gaming & Parimutuels Committee. As is SB 112, the so-called ‘grand compromise’ to rescue the scofflaws who have been conducting illegal gambling at VFW’s and American Legion posts for decades.
While the House House Administration Committee has a lengthy agenda today, what is notable is a bill that is not on the agenda, in violation of House rules. It should come as no surprise that this is a bill that Jack Markell wants to kill, and that he has his henchpersons, Schwartzkopf and Longhurst,helping him kill it. By my count, SB 21(Henry) has been in the House House Administration Committee for 18 legislative days. 18. I’m not sure whether the maximum permissible number of days that a bill can be in committee without consideration is 9 or 12, but I know it’s not 18. Just what is this threat to the State As We Know It that SB 21 represents? It would put state employees on the State Employees Benefit Committee. A committee dominated by the governor’s minions. That, ladeez and gentlemen, is what Jack Markell wants to quash. With the assistance of House Democratic leadership. Seriously, why does Jack Markell hate state employees?
Committee highlights on the Senate side:
HB 165(Jaques), aka the Charter Schools’ Capital Money Grab. In the Senate Education Committee.
SB 34(Simpson), Rethugs attempt to short-circuit the efficacy of the Delaware Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. In Senate Energy & Transit Committee.
We’re at a precarious point in the legislative year. Lots of proposals with dollar signs attached flying through with minimal oversight. You’re our eyes and ears. Sound the alarm when you see something that looks a little hinky. We’ll try to follow up on it.
Tags: Delaware racinos, El Somnambulo, Featured, regulation of abortion clinics, Steve Tanzer Delaware, Total Wines, transgender equality
S.B. 21 has 25 co-sponsors in the House. It’s ridiculous that this bill is being killed. House Rules stipulate 12 legislative days, which is why the House Admin. Cmte. can also avoid hearing Senate Bill 48 (redistricting reform). I think the only exception would be if the prime sponsor asks for the bill to be delayed.
From House Rules: “(b) All bills and resolutions shall be acted upon by the appropriate committee within twelve (12) legislative days
550 after being assigned to that committee.” Well, SB 21 was assigned to the House Admin. Cmte on May 1!
You can open/download House Rules at: http://legis.delaware.gov/legislature.nsf/1688f230b96d580f85256ae20071717e/8a3ed11d0b16028385256f700060660b/$FILE/House%20Rules%20147GA.pdf
I would also note that while I strongly support raising state employee wages, and understand the debate right now is about whether to do it, not how to do it, the focus in raising state employee wages at this point should be on raising salaries for those making the least. Our efforts should be on making sure that state employees are not making below poverty level wages as opposed to for a 1% across-the-board increaes.
Look at what happens with a 1% increase or even 2% increase:
Full-time employee making $20,000 now makes $20,200 (1% increase) or $20,400 (2% increase).
Full-time employee making $60,000 now makes $60,600 (1% increase) or $61,200 (2% increase).
It would be better to do a dollar amount increase if it is an across-the-board raise, or to do some other method to really focus on ensuring state employees are making sustainable wages.
On a positive note, this is being done with paraprofessionals in year 2 of a multi-year plan on this front: https://www.dsea.org/salaries/ParaSalary.html
SB 21 would appear to be ripe for a motion to bring it to the floor, especially with 25 House co-sponsors.
SB 140(Venables), which allows complaints from employees of medical centers that perform invasive surgeries (aka abortions)
Except that hospitals are specifically excluded – go figure. What happens to whistleblowers at hospitals?
It would put state employees on the State Employees Benefit Committee. A committee dominated by the governor’s minions. That, ladeez and gentlemen, is what Jack Markell wants to quash.
So it’s not just charter schools committees. *sigh* This is getting to be a pattern.
The Washington Post weighs in on the Markell casino bailout:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/19/delaware-is-bailing-out-its-casinos-wait-what/?hpid=z3
Here’s the (no) money graf:
“At the end of the day, geography is destiny: The winners in this new world of ubiquitous gambling will be those with casinos close to large population centers (hence the hot competition to build a new facility in National Harbor, across the river from Washington D.C.). Gaming industry advocates like to point to Las Vegas, saying it’s possible to create a destination that people will travel to with rock-bottom tax rates and massive development. But Delaware isn’t going to create an east coast Vegas. And it’s probably a better idea, as the News Journal advised, to pick up and move on.”
Hb 165 cleared committee 2 F’s- 1 oim’s- 1 U…. Awaiting details.
Atlantic City was supposed to be the East Coast Las Vegas. Look how that turned out.
There are 7 members of the Senate Education Committee:
Chairman: David P. Sokola T
Members: Catherine Cloutier
Bethany A. Hall-Long
Margaret Rose Henry
Ernesto B. Lopez
Nicole Poore
Bryan Townsend
So, they must have at least one more commitment to release the bill from committee to ensure a majority.
We need an appropriate slogan, perhaps Billions for education and not one red cent for Gambling Monopolies! We could get one of those Tea Party actors to burn a race track in effigy on the capitol steps.
Or maybe get John Sigler to shoot a wounded horse.
Nothing so sweet as seeing you utterly disappointed with the sh.tbags you elected in November. Choke on it.
Ain’t no bigger douchebag than a Delaware DemocRAT. F.ck their own just the same as the rest.
El Som, I’m confused. That is what I thought, but it is reported out of committee with only 4 people’s votes. My question is… were the rules changed with this legislature and I don’t know of it, or, was this push out of committee in egregious error?
kavips, it’s a 7 member committee, so isn’t 4 votes enough? From the account on your blog, kavips, it looks like HB 165 actually LOST in the committee until one member was “persuaded” to change his or her vote? And all the Yes votes came from just three members? And three other members found the bill so radioactive they didn’t show up? Good Lord, they will never get the stink out.
Or does it just take a majority of those present?
None of the above. Because there are only 21 senators, as opposed to 41 representatives, and because the Senate has roughly the same number of standing committees as the House, it is virtually impossible to have a quorum at most Senate committee meetings.
But bills are passed around for signatures to committee members not in attendance. And it appears that at least 4 members of the Senate Education Committee agreed to sign the bill out of committee.
Waiting on Mark Twain
MR Henry = unfavorable
Hall-Long = Merits
Lopez and Sokola = favorable
That’s four for release, on to the Senate floor.
So “unfavorable” means you think it should be released but it’s dumb? WTF sense does that make?
I guess the logic is: I’m against it, but not enough to deny my colleagues the right to consider it for themselves
TO clarify for everyone, all three categories: Unfavorable, Favorable and On its Merits represent a vote to release from committee.
To vote against release, that action is to not offer any of the three choices.
I attended the committee hearing on HB 165. Four senators were present: Sokola, Lopes, Poore & Townsend. BT was clear & persistent that there are holes in the bill’s language that make its supposed reforms meaningless. He also made clear that Sokola said any proposed amendment would be viewed as unfriendly–despite the obvious fact that the bill is absurdly poorly written (unless of course one wants it to be toothless, in which case it is perfect).
Sokola is a disaster for DE kids. I hope there is a strong candidate to run against him next time he’s up for election. Townsend needs some smart and thoughtful allies.
He also made clear that Sokola said any proposed amendment would be viewed as unfriendly
So what? We are making laws, not friends. Would the Senator’s feelings be hurt?
But bills are passed around for signatures to committee members not in attendance.
Thanks for the explanation El Som, and I reallize you have given it before. Now I wonder what’s the point of public hearings if, while the public is sitting in committee, they are sending runners around getting signatures away from my glare? Actually that may be the point.
^ This. Exactly.
FOIA is supposed to apply to the GA now, and that says all votes are to be taken in public. We don’t let city councils pass ordinances by taking private tallies after meetings. Sounds like a clear round-robin discussion, which is against the law. Seems like the Senate needs to develop better rules and figure out a way to make itself work.
“This is the way we’ve always done it” is clear bullshit.
The rule that allows a single Senator to attend a committee hearing is abysmal public policy. At least if the hearings were recorded and the audio’s posted, it would faintly resemble fair chance for the public to actually have input for the record. The real ‘game’ is played in getting written statements to the committee well ahead of the hearing.
As it is, the absent-but-voting Senators NEVER know what the public said, one way or the other, except for as filtered through a second-hand summary or what they may have scanned in the inbox.
Also, obviously, if 3 of the 7 Ed. Committee members are not present during the public ” hearing,” then they don’t hear anything the public has to say, prior to voting. Not that I’m so naive as to think many would let that influence their vote–but for all the time & gas it takes to get to Dover, they could keep up the charade a bit better.
Too bad there isn’t a recording, b/c when various people were pointing out that the bill does NOT require charters to comply with the nutritional standards for Lunch & b’fast followed by other public schls (the federal programs), Sokola’s final rejoinder was some off-hand “joke” about how, according to his daughter, those schl lunches weren’t really too nutritious. Seriously. How low-income do you suppose the Sokola family is?
There was no one in the room who could make any pretense of speaking for city kids in the district schls. Certainly no one actually from those communities (it was, after all, 2:30 on a work day, and a pain to reach by bus).
Senator Henry was present for about 15 minutes and then had to leave.
The single-most brave event of the day was Bryan Townsend publicly announcing that he was TOLD not to amend HB 165. That public admission was huge in my book, not that it phased Sokola in the least.
Sokola waxed nostalgic over the many years ‘his’ charter law was included in the Top 5 State Charter School laws in the country. His stated goal was to get our law back in the Top 5. Currently, according to Kendall Massett’s DE Voice piece yesterday, the DE law is in the middle of the pack.
We know that the working group included a “national charter expert”. I imagine that Sokola’s measure of the adequacy of the law revision revolved around this individual’s guidance on how to get the law ‘back on track to the top’ and not so much about the pesky details WE CARE ABOUT like discriminatory enrollment allowances and adequate nutritional standards.
Also interesting: the executive director of the State BoE, Donna Johnson, erred in comments to Townsend about the language and intent of the amendment including F/R lunch and breakfast. Their lawyer soon jumped up to correct the record noting that the bill still will not force Charters to enroll kids in the Federal program because of the administrative expense of filling out paperwork. Townsend wanted assurance that the language would be fixed to ensure that the Federal program’s standards for nutrition were in the statute. Johnson said she’d get on it and Eve Buckley offered the appropriate language necessary, which she also sent to Townsend.
Sokola said any proposed amendment would be viewed as unfriendly
So what are the repercussions of an “unfriendly” amendment?
During the House floor debate on HB 165, Paul Baumbach and John Kowalko rolled out a string of amendments – nearly each declared unfriendly – and with an accompanying reason – by either Jaques or Scott. All were voted down. There were up to 12 votes in favor of the amendments with sporadic crossover from the solid majority standing with the sponsors.
I don’t know about unfriendly amendments doing much more than being perceived as a waste of time. It is a way for the sponsor to identify amendments they do not wish attached to their legislation.
Repercussions for bucking the powers-that-be in general in Dover vary from very lesser to more strident punishment (bills denied hearings or at least a floor vote; stripping of Committee Chairs held or prohibiting future chances for leadership). El Som has some of the tales to tell.
The term ‘unfriendly amendment’ is basically code to a supporter of a bill that the sponsor and/or, in the case, the powers-that-be behind the bill, don’t want the amendment added to the bill.
The vote on said amendments almost always inversely coincides with the vote on the bill. That’s why it was easy to see that HB 165 had a comfortable margin in the House even before the roll call on the bill itself.
Help me out here. I have issues, the hubs has issues. I delayed going to Leg Hall Wed., because thought today was to be more critical? Hub went alone with his issues, as I backed out when it would have been the first time ever our “issues” became a ride share.
Now, am I going solo today and play solitaire? Or is the poker game still going on? And yes, I watch the agenda–BUT–saw blog entry that Thursday would………..trying to sift thru my adjusted calendar. Any help “citizen”? Or Nancy Willing?
Joanne, attending SBE might be more productive at 1:00.
Joanne, as far as I know there is no opp. for public comment today (though you could always ask Bryan T.–someone posted here earlier that senators can offer ordinary folks “privilege of the floor” or something like that, before a bill is voted on). If you do go and want to report back to the rest of us, that would be great–but we should have access to audio, too.
Mike Matthews said yesterday that he planned on coming down today and tweeting from the Senate floor, Joanne.
I’ve been told that 165 may not come for a vote today. Senate has a huge agenda and they may postpone it. I will receive word AS SOON AS I HEAR whether it’s being brought for a vote and then I’m headed down to get my seat on the floor.
Paging Mike Matthews, paging Mike Matthews—if you are out there, can you please give me a viable email contact if you are willing. Otherwise, can somebody else give him mine? Thanks.
We need a yenta around here.
Joanne, I’ve just sent you both an email–hope that works.
Great work DL readers. I think it’s time for a get together!!!! Thanks.
Mike M. says 165 is up for a vote after caucus–pretty soon (4:00, perhaps?). He’s on his way down.
Senate still in caucus. No word yet. Check my Twitter feed @dwablog for more updates.
Senate bells are ringing. I’m told four amendmens have been filed. Stay tuned.