Today’s Word Is: Petulant
Petulant. pet·u·lant ˈpeCHələnt/
adjective
- (of a person or their manner) childishly sulky or bad-tempered.
Imagine this. You’re attending or employed by a large land grant university that receives a measly 11.9% (down from 18.9%) of its funding from the State’s general fund, that was previously able to partake in the State’s group benefits purchasing power for health insurance (but had their rates for the same plan jacked up by Legislature and Markell this year causing a sharp rise in health insurance premiums for employees) and you note a news story about a small select group of state employees receiving raises this budget year knowing the State had to dip into one-time settlement funds to close a budget shortfall, and the overwhelming majority of state employees haven’t seen an increase in years, some pushing close to a decade.
You attempt to engage your legislators in the House (House, as in the purse-strings chamber), including the Majority Leader:
“Good morning, I am reaching out to you because I know you and I want to express my total disgust with the recent article in The News Journal regarding raises for staffers. Because I question newspaper articles please,
- confirm that the facts are correct and
- tell me where you stand on this issue and
- What if anything is being done about it?
Thank you for your time and I eagerly await your response.
Most sincerely,
Fran
(p.s. I have been out of town recently and have not caught up with the paper…I’m sincerely hoping to see numerous articles from legislators on this topic)”
A great, concise communique that lands its punches squarely on their targets; followed by a response from the Majority Leader:
“Good morning Fran,
Thank you for reaching out to the members of the General Assembly regarding your “disgust.” I have to say that I am taken back by your email in the context you choose to address us.
I would like to first ask that your email be addressed to all Leadership in the General Assembly in the House and Senate, Democrat and Republican. If you read the article, the raises came from all four caucus in the GA. If you are not aware of the process for staffing it runs through Leadership and not the members of the caucus. So at this point I would ask that you keep that in mind when addressing members on this email.
I’m sure as an employee of the University of Delaware and a paid consultant to GA facilitating task forces you are aware that the employees in the General Assembly are serving at the pleasure of the caucuses. This means they do not enjoy the job security that most state employees and University of Delaware have. During the interview process we remind them of that and they choose to work for our members in a capacity serving the public and their elected official.
I do as ALL members of the General Assembly respect our state employees for they serve our state in many capacities. We also respect our Universities and colleges by supporting them through funding and benefits.
If you would like more information I would ask that you include Leadership from ALL four caucuses or feel free to pick up the phone and call me directly. I can be reached at 302-562-6640.”
“…taken back by the context you choose to address us.”? The context is: she saw an article and wanted confirmation from those involved on accuracy and plans to address it. What other context can you possibly expect when you’re a legislator and you receive a question about something you were directly involved with? This context is surprising to a State Rep? I’ve got a bad feeling about this.
I would like to first ask that your email be addressed to all Leadership in the General Assembly in the House and Senate, Democrat and Republican.
I can help with that, Representative Longhurst. When cc-ing the Acting University President, just add the addresses of the additional members of the Assembly you feel should be included and click “Send”. Done. Totally eliminating the need for the response above and showing initiative on your part. Onward:
If you read the article, the raises came from all four caucus in the GA.
Ah the classic “THEY did it too!!!” which invokes one of my favorite reprimands of all time: “If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?”
If you are not aware of the process for staffing it runs through Leadership and not the members of the caucus. So at this point I would ask that you keep that in mind when addressing members on this email.
“runs through Leadership.” …“Leadership”. Hold on a sec:
Right! She’s part of the leadership in the House. She feels unfairly singled out, maybe even offended. If you read the initial email a personal acquaintance and working relationship are implied, this might have bearing on the singling out. Also it might possibly be due to her role as Majority Leader.
I’m sure as an employee of the University of Delaware and a paid consultant to GA facilitating task forces you are aware that the employees in the General Assembly are serving at the pleasure of the caucuses.
“I’m telling mommy!!!” I can do that too: As an employee of the residents of Bear, she should be aware that she serves at the pleasure of us. Well, in an ideal world that would be true. But we know in Bear if you have D behind your name and get elected once; you’re elected for life until the next redistricting.
This means they do not enjoy the job security that most state employees and University of Delaware have. During the interview process we remind them of that and they choose to work for our members in a capacity serving the public and their elected official.
Here’s where I think Rep. Longhurst really loses track of herself. A component of public service is responding to concerns and inquiries from the public in a respectful, informative, and productive manner even if the inquiries are not made in those manners. Chiding someone for perceived tone in an email is none of the above. Copying the person’s boss’ boss on the response in which you do your chiding is most unprofessional.
Proceeding to seek “clarification” from a lobbyist about the source of a statement someone on “his” payroll made is straight up spiteful and embarrassing. Longhurst knew it wasn’t a university-wide position. I graduated in 2004 from UD and nothing from them was or is ever that informal, brief, and to the point. The initial email even used singular pronouns indicative of a correspondence from an individual. I’ve got a word to describe this that starts with “bull” but doesn’t end in ‘y’. Imagine if this came from a student’s @udel.edu address, how would Longhurst react then? CC the kid’s RA?
She is my State Rep, although in my attempts to communicate with her over the years I’ve never had a response. Not even a canned one. So I use the term “representative” very loosely.
Anecdote time: A few years ago some housing units across the street from me burned down because a tenant flicked a lit cigarette out the back window during the middle of a drought igniting the dead grass, dried undergrowth in the wetlands, and the decks. The fire obliterated 2 units and damaged 3. In the preceding months and years, there were multiple incidents of gunfire, home invasion, homicide, and drug activity in our neighborhood. After several of them, we asked Rep. Longhurst to meet to discuss our concerns, what to do to improve our community, and how she as a State leader might help. Requests went unanswered except for one after the fire in which she agreed to meet us in front of the burned out homes. On the day of, it was rainy and cold. So she cancelled the meeting and did not respond to requests to reschedule. How can I cc everyone in Bear about this?
Petulance and leadership should not go hand in hand. Unfortunately when it comes to our State leaders, they often do. This is just the most recent example and kudos for Reps. Kowalko and Williams for addressing this situation appropriately. “..this is just a symptom of a larger illness in our caucus; this is a reflection of every one of us.” Williams wrote. There’s a bit of leadership for you. Something, something “hold our elected officials to a higher standard”. How about we do that next November?
P.S.: How not to sound petulant:
“Hi Fran, thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns over the selective pay raise process that occurred with the new state budget. I share your concerns with the overall trend of decreasing compensation for our dedicated state employees and in the coming legislative session will be seeking methods to reverse that trend not only for state workers but for state services, like education, as well. I would welcome your additional thoughts on this matter and on our budget as a whole as Delaware is facing a tough financial year ahead.”
P.P.S.: Emails between state legislators and citizens are not considered public. Publicly funded State email system, publicly funded elected official, private email. …Okay.
You know who writes nasty emails like this? People who get away with this sort of behavior all the time. Someone seems a little too secure in her position.
Like I said in El Som’s previous post. That place has become corrupt since Speaker Gilligan left. Time for everyone down there to go. We have already started finding candidates for the primary and the general for every single incumbent down there. Anyone who has any suggestions please let me know…….
Changes do need to happen…especially with leadership. Starting to look a lot like the Gordon Administration in LegHall.
Well done Brian.
Boom! In all seriousness, I know I have written things and said things when my emotions are high which I do regret after, I admit to this sincerely. Been there done that, but you can’t say, “oh well I had to be sure this wasn’t the opinion of UD… because controversial emails and Hillary Clinton…” WHAT!? No. Don’t compare this innocent question from a constituent to hundreds of personal emails sent to the Secretary of State for the COUNTRY. Good grief. It’s one thing to write a rude and patronizing response back to this person, but that excuse took it to a new level. And this is not one person’s perception. This is not a News Journal spin (although maybe a little bit) this is a collective agreement from her constituents and colleagues that her response was inappropriate, period.
So Brian, when will you be filing?
Brian’s got my vote!
Yeah!!! Screw those 24 year old staffers making 42k a year who have to deal with these “petulant” legislators 24/7. YEAH!! Let’s go get those young progressive non-union non-merit democratic staffers!! WHO’S WITH ME!!! (sarcasm)
I hope every staffer who works for a legislator who is being vocal about their well deserved raises, opts out of working for them (for free) during the election season. Staffer Opt Out movement begins now!!!
Go, Brian!!! File today!!!
Bane- I find your interpretation of this post as a slight against legislative staffers peculiar and the language you use to express it strikingly similar to the language in Longhurst’s emails. I’d argue that the rest of the state employees, many of whom work equally long hours, deserve raises too. Why for some, but not all?
Thanks for the encouragement guys. Not quite sure how I’d handle running for office, working, parenting and husbanding though..
Just to make a point. I don’t want to be injecting reason into this well forming mob. However, I think Longhurst’s comment about directing her issues to leadership was an effort to protect the rest of her caucus who were addressed in the email. I read her statement as saying …
(paraphrasing) “Don’t blame all of these legislators for the decision. This was a decision made by leadership in all four caucuses, so your anger/email should be directed at us and not our members”
It sounded like it was actually in protection/defense of people like John Kowalko and Kim Williams who may have been taking unwarranted heat for the decision to give out these raises, though they were not involved. I’m not defending the rest of her actions or the rest of the email. Just that statement which I think you unfairly interpreted as her feeling “unfairly singled out” … which doesn’t even make any sense in the context of the rest of her statement which actually asked the writer to single out leadership rather than not.
Then, that hint of slightly admirable loyalty was met with members of her own caucus throwing her under the bus publicly. You come to expect this stuff from Kowalko, but it looks like he has a few new teammates now.
A plausible alternative explanation, Bane. Unfortunately in my interaction, or lack thereof, with Rep. Longhurst, I have been unable to collect evidence that warrants an interpretation like that.
She is leadership, it’s in her title. House Majority Leader. As Majority Leader, I’d kind of like her to take it to the entire chamber herself. Not ask someone else to do it. Maybe I’m unfairly expecting that of her in her leadership role though.
Did Kowalko, et. al. know of leadership’s plan? Did they approve of it? If no, they absolutely aren’t throwing her under the bus for a making a decision to reward staffers when they just got done with yet another session where the 99.5% of state worker’s not those staffers were stiffed yet again. It’s a dick move no matter what narrative confection you want to dream up.
I keep rereading the emails looking for Bane’s reasoning. First, Longhurst doesn’t answer a single question posed in the initial email, instead she adopts an accusatory tone and basically says, “You’re doing it wrong!” She obviously had a big problem with the writer’s use of the word disgust. She was *gasp* taken aback! Seriously?
The invocation of Hillary Clinton is really the cherry on top, as Christy said. The superlatives need to calm it down a little bit. I agree The News Journal didn’t really put a lot of spin on this, but they didn’t have to. It practically wrote itself.
Kowalko has already said that neither he nor most caucus members were aware of this arrangement.
Yet, all of them will have to deal with this as a campaign issue. No wonder they’re pissed.
Pandora, she wasn’t taken aback. She was taken ‘back’. She’s got a little Kevin McCarthy in her.
BTW, Longhurst lied about saying that all four caucuses did it. The House D’s did it first. When the other caucuses found out, they felt they had to follow suit.
The House R’s could not unilaterally raise salaries. They went to Pete & Val, said ‘we know what you did’, and that’s how they got the raises. Pete & Val wanted to keep this buried.
It sounded like it was actually in protection/defense of people like John Kowalko and Kim Williams
Is there anyone in Delaware who doesn’t know that Kim Williams, John Kowalko and the rest of the Gang of 6 all have big targets on their backs put there by their own leadership including Longhurst? We’ll see if Longhurst is out there protecting and defending Williams and Kowalko during the upcoming session and next November.
Kowalko and Williams are grownups. They’re mature adults who can fight their own battles (though sometimes John could be more selective in picking his fights) and need little protection — least of all from Valerie Longhurst.
Let’s also remember that the so-called Gang of 6 were upset by the secrecy surrounding Sneaky Pete’s selling out of his own caucus members when he cut a budget deal with the Senate Rethugs. Done in secret. His own caucus didn’t know.
Just like the raises. Done in secret. His own caucus didn’t know.
People who do things in secret usually have lots more stuff to hide. Wonder if that’s the case here?
This administration is breeding contempt among state employees. Why would anyone who hasn’t got a raise in nearly a decade losing money to inflation and ever increasing health care cost give a damn about doing a good job..Especially the way the dishonest party leaders give certain already well people a raise. The dems are fortunate that the republicans are non viable nut cases or a lot of state employees would vote against the hubris of the dems
El Som:
You are right so many things done in secret. There will be more coming trust me……
At the end of the day, I don’t think Longshanks and Sneaky Pete are smart enough to govern like Chris Christie.
Read Celia Cohen’s grapevine LOL
http://delawaregrapevine.com/10-15legisnotes.asp
Maybe Lacey Lafferty should change her Party registration? Other than being a D and a woman, doesn’t Emily’s List have any other criteria? I mean, Valerie Longhurst for Congress?
lol.Is that a joke about Longhurst for Congress or is that for real….. She wouldn’t stand a chance especially with Townsend running… Longhurst won’t be elected to anything next time especially when the next NJ article comes out soon. The bully incident will pale in comparison to what is to come
I LOVE a good tease–but only when I’m the one doing the teasing.
The DE grapevine article does bring up one point. I wish Lisa Blunt would run for something.
Is anyone else as paranoid as I am with a whispered scandal and a fire at leg hall ?
Delaware politics… even the scandals and gossip is boring.