(Edit: I’ve fixed the title since the first debate was in Sussex some weeks ago.I’m sorry for the mistake.) Tuesday night was a debate sponsored by the Society of Professional Journalists between Chip Flowers and Sean Barney. Unfortunately, I could not go, but a friend was there and provides this Guest Post of the proceedings:
Last night Widener Law School and the Society of Professional Journalists hosted a debate for the Democratic candidates in the State Treasurer’s primary race. The forum was moderated by WDEL’s Al Mascitti and featured incumbent Chip Flowers and his primary challenger Sean Barney. Both men set the tone of the debate early on in their opening statements with Treasurer Flowers emphasizing his central message of the $44 million dollars he has made on the state’s portfolio and the fact that he has stood up to the establishment in Delaware in doing so. Barney countered by saying that Treasurer Flower’s term was not only unproductive, but that it was counterproductive, and claimed that the $44 million was an historically low figure. Barney also took issue with Flowers using the figure on billboards and other campaign materials, saying that is sets a dangerous precedent for Treasurers trying to one-up each other by continuing to try and push returns higher and higher eventually leading to big losses due to a lack of focus on security. Flowers stated pride in the returns and that we shouldn’t shy away from measures of success and that he was proud of the work he’d done despite the establishment trying to stop him.
Transparency
The debate was 90 minutes and it went quickly with, as WDEL characterized, “traded barbs.” The conversation substantially revolved around the relationship with the Cash Management Policy Board, legislative actions taken in the last four years, and the role of the Treasurer. It started with a discussion on financial disclosure and transparency and HB 381. While both Barney and Flowers agreed that financial disclosure for the Board is important and should be expanded, they disagreed on why. Barney suggested that the intent of the proposal from the Treasurer was more a function of political retribution against a Board the Treasurer calls corrupt rather than good governance. Flowers asserted that the establishment killed good legislation that he fought for for three years.Both also agreed that an elected Treasurer was important because it offered accountability in a way that an appointed one would not. Barney emphasized the recently weakened role of the office, and said he hoped to regain trust with the General Assembly and the public so that some of the powers formerly held by the Treasurer, might be restored. He noted that the Treasurer stopped staffing the Board and caused the legislature to move the requirements to staff the office from the Treasurer to Department of Finance and he would like to see that reversed. Flowers said he doesn’t feel that the powers of the Treasury need to be expanded but said that the reason that his office stopped staffing the board was because they would rather have the Executive-controlled OMB deal with minutes and staffing.
Cash Management Policy Board
Unsurprisingly one of the hottest topics of debate was the Cash Management Policy Board. The Treasurer maintained his position that the Board was not only ineffective, but were not working in the best interest of the taxpayers and was actively trying to undermine him, even going as far as to call the conduct of the board “disgusting.” Flowers referenced an incident when he came into office and there were hundreds of millions of dollars tied up in a failing bank that the members of the board didn’t want to pull. Flowers said that he removed the money from the failing bank and insisted that any state asset be collateralized. He cited that incident as an example of the type of leadership he brought, standing up to the establishment.
Barney insisted that the model was effective and it was irresponsible to try to remove safeguards and consolidating power in the Treasurer, citing examples of Detroit and Arkansas where Treasurers have been indicted for corruption when given sole control of the portfolio. Barney then challenged the Treasurer on past claims that the members of the board were corrupt, saying that it was the lowest type of political rhetoric, and that if the Treasurer had evidence of corruption on the board, that he had a duty to report it to either the Attorney General’s Office or the Public Integrity Commission. Much to the surprise of those in the room, the Treasurer responded that the appropriate authorities had been notified and that an investigation was underway. Whether or not that’s true, no one really seems to know.The issue of whether it was the Board or the Treasurer who was investing the state’s $2 Billion portfolio was also raised. Despite having previously testified in front of the General Assembly that he had always followed the guidelines of the Board, the Treasurer told the audience that he had invested the portfolio in opposition to the Board and was due credit for the returns of his term. The truth of whether or not Flowers actually invested according to the board is still unclear.
The most contentious moment of the night when Barney said Flowers wasn’t giving the office his all as a fulltime Treasurer, citing his law firm’s website where Flowers is still listed as a Managing Member. Barney claimed that legal ethics dictate that Flowers would have to be substantially practicing to have his name attached to the firm as a public official. Flowers forcefully claimed that he was indeed a full time Treasurer but never addressed the issue of the legal ethics other than to say that Barney only recently passed the bar.
Both candidates closed by thanking Widener and the Society of Professional Journalists and shook hands after finishing what was the most hotly contested public forum between the two thus far in the campaign.
Did any of you go? What did you think of the debate?