General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: May 9, 2018
Let’s talk about ‘taking a walk’. In legislative parlance, the phrase means ‘disappearing during a roll call so that you will be recorded as absent on a certain vote’. And, yes, Andria Viola Bennett took such a walk yesterday, and it imperiled a good piece of legislation from her Dover colleague Rep. Sean Lynn. Here is the bill in question. The bill states that ‘a crime is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly stores or leaves a loaded firearm where a minor or other person prohibited by law, or “unauthorized person,” can access the firearm, and the unauthorized person obtains the firearm’.
Hoo boy, this roll call. The bill only got 21 yes votes. Not a single R voted for it. D’s voting no: Lumpy Carson and Mike Mulrooney. And then there were four ‘Absents’. Bennett, Hudson, Longhurst, and Ramone. Of those four, both Longhurst and Hudson were legit absences for the entire day. Bennett and Ramone ‘took walks’. I’ll say it again: In a district as Democratic as Bennett’s, there is no excuse for not primarying her. I believe that Sen. Roman Hruska once said that ‘Mediocre people deserve representation too’. I want to know: What’s the next step down from mediocre? And bleeping Ramone? C’mon. Someone needs to challenge these serial…mediocrities. Oh, and a big thumbs-up to Melissa Minor Brown for primarying NRA shill Mike Mulrooney. She’s been a nurse with both the VA and the Department of Corrections. She’s seen the damage that deadly weapons inflict. If I were her, I’d put the gun issue front and center as Mulrooney is totally out of touch with his district on this.
Only two legislators had the good sense to vote against Melanie Smith’s phony ‘Sustainability Attainability’ bill: John Kowalko and Kim Williams.
I was right. Senate Rethugs didn’t just want to kill the rights of public employees, they also wanted to stomp on their graves. Only Senators Cloutier and DelCollo voted yes on this bill. And only Cloutier voted yes on this bill. Rethugs gonna Rethug.
Speaking of which, 8 House R’s voted against allowing counties to raise the lodging tax by a modest margin. Why? Who knows?
Here is yesterday’s Session Activity Report in its entirety. I’ve only skimmed the surface.
OK, kids, it’s committee time. We’ll start today with the Senate highlights:
*SB 189 (McDowell) supposedly would bring Delaware into compliance with Federal requirements regarding enforcement of ‘underground excavation violations’. You see, the State, particularly DNREC, wasn’t seeking out violations and wasn’t enforcing them even when the agency knew. Because that’s how the Delaware Way rolls. Environmental, Natural Resources & Energy Committee.
*Here’s a bill that I like, and it’s an important one. SB 176 (Hansen) ‘creates a Prescription Opioid Impact Fund funded by a Prescription Opioid Impact Fee (“Fee”) that is paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers’. It’s a complex bill, and it remains to be seen if it’s ready for prime time yet. I do have one question. The bill’s synopsis claims that ‘Delaware leads the nation in the number of prescription opioids dispensed and drug overdose deaths.’ That can’t be true. I mean, not even on a per capita basis. Looks like they might have copied a synopsis from another state. Am I wrong?
*Delaware’s version of the Equal Right Amendment will be considered in the Senate Executive Committee. As it is the first leg of an amendment to the Delaware Constitution, it will have to pass identically in two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly. Believe it or not, five representatives voted against the bill when it was considered in the House. These five: Collins, Dukes, Postles, Wilson and Yearick.
Today’s House Committee highlights:
*HB 375 (Mitchell) prohibits the manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, or delivery of large-capacity magazines, which are defined as ammunition feeding devices with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. Of course, Mitchell has already introduced an amendment raising the prohibition from 10 to 17 rounds. Jee-zus. Judiciary Committee
…provides for election day registration for presidential primary, primary, special, and general elections whereas currently the deadline is the fourth Saturday prior to the date of the election. Moreover, same day registration at polling places will be permitted with submission of valid government issued identification or other generally accepted proof of identification.
House Administration Committee.
Well, looks like it’s pretty certain that the Equal Rights Amendment will make it out of the Senate Executive Committee. After all, it’s also #1 on today’s Senate Agenda.
Still no movement on gun bills in the Senate. I just might have to make a few calls…
Legislators, for the most part, don;t seem to have any moral code guiding their decision making. It all seems very transaction based. “If you give this, you’ll get that.”
So what does Andria Viola Bennett get in exchange for her absenteeism? What’s the upside?
Some of the reasons why Kim and I debated and voted against HB 310.
This seems to be a useless bill that does nothing and then gives applicant businesses a certificate that is actually completely meaningless but that they can use to try to claim gives them some kind of beneficial status as sustainable or responsible without any requirements that they actually be so. This type of system would be rife with abuse, and would cast the state of Delaware as the entity enabling that abuse with its seal of approval. If companies want to report something, then they can go ahead and just do it, or start a trade association or other entity to do this, or incorporate as a public benefit corporation. It is entirely inappropriate for a state to literally certify that companies have some kind of sustainability or transparency measures when it is purely on the basis of what the company claims, regardless of importance, impact, or even truth.
I think some analysis seems like a good theory. Getting a state to certify that you are a good company when you don’t have to actually do anything sustainable, transparent, or responsible is great, right?
I think you may want to consider submitting an amendment to remove the name of the certificate. The title, “Certification of Adoption of Sustainability and Transparency Standards Act,” is a lie since there is no oversight at all. Maybe replace the words “Certification of” with “Voluntary” in the bill and then remove any mention of a “certificate” and instead just list the companies on a state website, including the last time their application or renewal application was submitted. The companies would still be able to say “we participate in this voluntary program,” but without the deceptive and misleading title of a “certificate” (when the state is “certifying” nothing other than that the company sent meaningless paperwork to the state).
The stock exchange name is a good example of how businesses do this. “DBOT” and “Delaware Board of Trade Holdings” almost sound like official government entities, This is business language meant to trick people. Why would the state be the one doing this? Go to the Better Business Bureau or the State Chamber of Commerce if you want some meaningless “certificate.”
If these entities want some kind of state recognition of their efforts to be responsible or sustainable, they should just incorporate as a public benefit corporation, which is already law and REQUIRES them to actually do these things.
Compare the b-corp law:
(a) A “public benefit corporation” is a for-profit corporation organized under and subject to the requirements of this chapter that is intended to produce a public benefit or public benefits and to operate in a responsible and sustainable manner. To that end, a public benefit corporation shall be managed in a manner that balances the stockholders’ pecuniary interests, the best interests of those materially affected by the corporation’s conduct, and the public benefit or public benefits identified in its certificate of incorporation. In the certificate of incorporation, a public benefit corporation shall:
(1) Identify within its statement of business or purpose pursuant to § 102(a)(3) of this title 1 or more specific public benefits to be promoted by the corporation; and
(2) State within its heading that it is a public benefit corporation.
(a) The board of directors shall manage or direct the business and affairs of the public benefit corporation in a manner that balances the pecuniary interests of the stockholders, the best interests of those materially affected by the corporation’s conduct, and the specific public benefit or public benefits identified in its certificate of incorporation.
§ 367 Derivative suits.
Stockholders of a public benefit corporation owning individually or collectively, as of the date of instituting such derivative suit, at least 2% of the corporation’s outstanding shares or, in the case of a corporation with shares listed on a national securities exchange, the lesser of such percentage or shares of at least $2,000,000 in market value, may maintain a derivative lawsuit to enforce the requirements set forth in § 365(a) of this title.
With the bullshit new proposed law:
5005D Limitation of Liability.
Neither the failure by an Entity to satisfy any of its Standards, nor the selection of specific Assessment Measures, nor any other action taken by or on behalf of the Entity pursuant to this chapter or any omission to take any action required by this chapter to seek, obtain or maintain status as a Reporting Entity, shall, in and of itself, create any right of action on the part of any person or entity or otherwise give rise to any claim for breach of any fiduciary or similar duty owed to any person or entity.
What is the point of this new law? It adds NOTHING beyond what could already be in the B corp law, and yet allows them to say they are doing something in the public benefit when, even if they are PURPOSEFULLY LYING, they face NO CONSEQUENCES.
I have a theory for the purpose of HB 310. This bill could be used by startups to help raise venture capital by demonstrating a “seal of approval” via the “Certificate of Sustainability/Transparency,” or whatever from the State of Delaware, in which the startups write their owns rules for compliance. The problem, of course, is that there is no/little oversight – Welcome to Delaware.
In addition, Delaware has a new stock exchange for small cap companies: the Delaware Board of Trade. I wonder if this bill was written to assist the stock exchange by enhancing a company’s prospectus for an IPO, or an offering memorandum/documents for a Reg A+ company. See quote and link below
Your theory makes sense to me. After all, this bill couldn’t have been created in a vacuum.
Someone, or some someones, wanted it. Who, and what did they want it for?
“This type of system would be rife with abuse, and would cast the state of Delaware as the entity enabling that abuse with its seal of approval.”
Upholding a state tradition.
Thanks JK. This bill is terrible.
That bill didn’t allow the “counties” to collect a lodging tax, the bill allowed counties with a population of over 500,000 to collect a lodging tax. Delaware only has one county with a population over 500,000.
Senate Substitute NO. 1 for Senate Bill No.80 (McDowell) is being heard at 4 PM in the House Energy Committee today. A giveaway to Delmarva Power/Exelon is an understatement. This Bill is giving a blank check, signed by ratepayers, to DP&L and its parent company/monopoly Exelon. I intend to fight it on behalf of the ratepayers and small business community but I do not feel confident that I will prevail. Horrible bill presented with a plethora of disingenuous motives and consequences presented.
Representative John Kowalko
I love the phrase in the bill ‘interim rate mechanism’, which, as anyone who is paying attention will understand, means a rate increase w/o oversight or official approval.
Exactly
J.K.
Bennett keeps her A+ NRA rating.
Word is that Arimtage was hounding her to vote against the bill.
“That bill didn’t allow the “counties” to collect a lodging tax, the bill allowed counties with a population of over 500,000 to collect a lodging tax. Delaware only has one county with a population over 500,000.”
Oh. So the R’s all voted “no” becuase they wanted to other counties to be able to increase lodging taxes? Why didn’t they just say so?
There was an amendment to a bill in the House yesterday that was written for NCC but it allowed the other two counties to opt in if they wanted to. The accommodations tax bill was written in a way to block Sussex and Kent from levying the tax. Blocking out Kent and Sussex is the reason why some Sussex and Kent Rs voted no and why one Sussex D voted yes. (Except for those Rs that always vote no to any tax, they voted no because no.)
Clearly, NCC had no objection to enabling Kent & Sussex to do this, so is it safe to assume that neither county sought this?
I believe that Kent and Sussex would have wanted the option, just like they wanted the option in the amendment to another bill. This bill prohibits Kent and Sussex from having the option until their populations hit 500,000. There also seemed to be some confusion about whether Airbnb and VRBO rentals in NCC were included in the bill. I don’t know if they are or are not, but since other short term home rentals are included, I would hope Airbnb and VRBO rentals would be included, too.
Then I just don’t understand why the bill was crafted the way it was. Incompetence and/or obliviousness?