General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Thurs., March 21, 2019
Wellwellwell,guess what issue has resurfaced with no warning whatsoever. Yep, it’s the slush fund for Del-Tech, this time with no automatic property tax provision. The bill allegedly was reported out of committee yesterday even though no notice was provided that the bill would even be considered in committee. None. Which is contrary to President Pro-Tem McBride’s rules about transparency. Oh, and the bill has been placed on today’s agenda. That in and of itself should tell you that McDowell and ‘Doctor’ Brainard are pulling another fast one. Anyway, the bill would:
This Act gives the College’s Board of Trustees the authority to issue bonds to finance the cost of major and minor capital improvements, deferred maintenance, and the acquisition of related equipment and educational technology and establishes the Community College Infrastructure Fund (“the Fund”) to pay the principal and interest on such bonds. This Act is a substitute for and differs from Senate Bill No. 50 by deleting the property tax component and capitalizes the Fund instead by an annual appropriation equal to 10% of the amounts appropriated to public education in the previous year’s bond and capital improvement act(???), together with such other funds as may be deposited by the College from sources including, but not limited to, tuition and fees, private funds, grants and federal support. This Act also provides a mechanism, but not an obligation, for the state to provide matching funds for minor capital improvement projects consistent with existing matching provisions for public education.
I’m slow on the uptake, but shouldn’t such a bill require a fiscal note? I mean, isn’t the annual appropriation coming from state coffers?
So, what we have here is a bill that was introduced yesterday in lieu of the original, was passed through committee w/o proper public notice, lacks a fiscal note, and has been placed on today’s Senate Agenda. Is it possible to even reach any other conclusion than that McDowell and Brainard are trying to push this bill through without any oversight whatsoever? I don’t know what that alternative conclusion could be. This is as cynical as it gets. Will the Senate put the brakes on this blatant rush job? We’ll see.
Here is yesterday’s Session Activity Report. Still no sign of the criminal justice reform bills. Perhaps today.
There’s one notable bill on today’s House Agenda. HB 24(Bennett) ‘would prohibit insurers and pharmacy benefit managers from engaging in the practice of “clawbacks”. When the total cost of a prescription drug to an insurer or pharmacy benefits manager is less than a patient’s co-pay, the insurer or pharmacy benefits manager keeps the difference in a practice known as a “clawback” ‘. A good bill supported by research:
According to a March 2018 report issued by the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics based on the Center’s analysis of 2013 data from a large commercial insurer combined with data on national average drug reimbursements, almost 25% of filled pharmacy prescriptions involved a patient co-payment that exceeded the average reimbursement paid by the insurer by more than $2.00. The report further noted that overpayments were more likely to occur on claims for generic drugs than brand drugs and that the total overpayments in the Center’s sample amounted to $135 million.
I also like HB 88(Carson) , which:
…removes the automatic suspension of a driver’s license for failure to provide proof of insurance. The Division of Motor vehicles will continue to suspend the registration of the uninsured vehicle. The removal of the automatic license suspension will allow the vehicle owner to get to work, keep a job, so that the driver will be able to obtain vehicle insurance.
Here is today’s Senate Agenda, which, other than Del-Tech’s sleight-of-hand, is relatively bland. I just have one question: Among other things, SB 18(McDowell) ‘…’reduces regulatory burden on motor vehicle dealers and electric suppliers by removing unnecessary administrative requirements and reporting’. My question: According to whom? Sen. McDowell used to be one of the more trustworthy of public officials, but I don’t think that’s any longer the case. Which is why I ask questions that I might not previously have asked.
Whaddayathink?
EL Som – Is Carney using the pocket veto on The National Popular Vote interstate compact, or does it just take a long time to sign stuff?
It’s only been a week since the bill passed the House. I think I read somewhere that he intended to sign it.
This opinion piece was sent to Delaware State News, Delaware News Journal, and Delmarva Now just now. May or may not get published. Too long for a blog but I thought you may find of interest. Definitely some “sleight of hand” going on with both parties as HB60 and SB50SS1 are almost identical.
…………………………………..see below
In what appears to be a “shell game”, DelTech has lined up legislative support to bail them out of an 89Million Dollar infrastructure maintenance problem. Like they say on TV infomercials, “but wait” there is more. This same legislation gives the college the ability to borrow unseemly amounts of money to expand, enhance and improve their infrastructure with little oversight by the legislature.
The Legislature’s first attempt to address this problem was with SB50, mostly sponsored by the Democrats. It essentially amounted to taxation without representation that was strongly objected to by our taxpayers. This bill, temporarily on hold, proposed a new statewide property tax that would be levied by an “unelected” Board of Trustees. It also abdicated legislative oversight of the spend of taxpayer dollars. Basically allowing DTCC to tax and spend with little oversight.
Looking for a way forward the Republicans then proposed HB50 eliminating the statewide property tax. In their legislation, DelTech will be given the ability to issue bonds to finance the cost of the repairs and improvements.
Not to be undone, on March 20th the Democrats amended SB50 with SS1 that eliminates the statewide property tax as part of their solution as well.
Now both bills (HB60 and SB50) are almost identical. Both bills are filled with questionable legislation addressing things outside of the scope of the original problem.
DTCC President Brainard previously said: “This is not about building any new buildings. This is not adding one new square foot of space here. It’s about replacing roofs, replacing mechanical systems.”
Why do both pieces of legislation include areas that are beyond the scope of the problem as defined by President Brainard? These “out of scope” items include expansion and development of the college, acquisition of land, enhancements to technology, acquisition or construction of buildings, addressing a critical need to build, renovate, or expand its 12 academic and student support facilities in each county, and the City of Wilmington, and make DTCC eligible for state matching funds for minor capital improvements. All outside the scope of the original problem.
Legislative oversight should dictate answering some troubling questions before moving forward. Over the 14year period, DTCC has received capital dollars of 68.6 million for infrastructure maintenance and another 10 million for expansion. These are comparable dollar allocations to those received by the Division of Facilities Management. How were these dollars spent over those years? Does DTCC have appropriate and effective facilities management program in place?
Will the “industry standard” for determining the amount of maintenance dollars DTCC should be entitled to each year (“the College should be re-investing $12 million annually to maintain the College’s existing infrastructure”) be used to decide how to allocate funds for our schools, Delaware State College and the Division of Facilities Management for their infrastructure maintenance?
A bigger question is why the board at DTCC let this develop into 89 million-dollar problem?
Has the college provided the Legislature with a detailed list of the needed infrastructure investments? Has it been prioritized? Do they have detailed project plans in place?
If the Legislature limits the scope to the original problem, a combination of some available money from the one-time spending fund and additional money from the Bond Committee over the next few years may be the way to go. This needs to be coupled with a specific, detailed, managed DTCC project and spending plan. The final solution needs to have mandated management controls and oversight in place to prevent this gross mismanagement from happening again. Ongoing Legislative oversight is required.
It seems irresponsible to abdicate the responsibilities of the legislature to the DTCC board who let this evolve into an 89million dollar problem. This is the same board they propose to authorize the ability to borrow and spend huge amounts of money with little oversight
I am a fan of Delaware Technical and Community College and believe they deserve all the support we can afford. However, they need to be held accountable to manage our tax dollars in an efficient and effective manner.
I encourage you to add your voice to the many citizens that have already spoken out against SB50 and HB60 with their concerns about how this 89-million-dollar problem has evolved at DTCC. Both pieces of legislation include funding of millions of dollars way beyond the scope of the problem. Keep your eyes on their “shell game.” Let your representatives in the Legislature know how you feel.
McDowell’s substitute didn’t need to go through committee since it was in lieu of a bill that had already passed committee. That’s standard practice for Delaware and most other legislatures across the country.
No rules were broken in terms of committee notice.
And no standards of transparency were upheld.
McDowell is a rotten self-dealing tool on the make. Always has been, El Somnambulo’s beliefs to the contrary.
Wasn’t disagreeing. Was just trying to explain the process.
I understand the process. But while this was technically a substitute bill, it was a whole ‘nother bill entirely.
Matt Bittle tweeted earlier that the Senate would not consider the Del-Tech bill today. It’s always worth following Matt’s tweets.
I see a potential major problem with the bill, at least from the legislative perspective. According to a statement from Sen. McDowell, the bill ‘would direct the Capital Bond Bill Committee to make an annual appropriation to a new Community College Infrastructure Fund in the Bond and Capital Improvements Act. The new line item would be benchmarked at 10% of the total capital funding provided to the state’s public schools in the prior year’s budget’.
First of all, if I’m on the Bond Bill Committee, I would likely reply with a hearty ‘Fuck You’. Second, I don’t think it’s legal to bind future General Assemblies to such fiscal obligations. And third, will Del-Tech ever explain how they got into such a fix in the first place? Was this due to Lonnie’s largesse, large ass reference deliberate, or was this the work of his anointed acolyte, ‘Dr.’ Mark Brainard? Oh, and four, why should taxpayers bail them out? Is ‘we fucked up so badly that we’re throwing ourselves on the mercy of the General Assembly’ a legitimate argument? Oh, and five, if all those legislators with ties to Del-Tech are forced to recuse themselves from the vote, how are they ever gonna get enough votes to pass this?
And, six, and I’m pretty sure I’ve got this right, the amount the GA appropriates for school district capital spending is related to how many school construction projects voters approve in referenda. As in, if voters approve construction of five new schools in the state in one year, DelTech would get more capital funds than if voters approved only one … or even none.
There’s the genius of the move. Give the voters one more reason to vote against public education.
Smart, really smart.
Devious genius.
https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2019/03/21/how-much-criminal-justice-reform-too-much-delawares-ruling-party/3211039002/
“Through a spokesman, Gov. John Carney declined to take a side.”
What a leader!
Not only hasn’t he ‘taken a side’, he’s been completely AWOL on the entire issue.
Will someone please primary this dim bulb?
Pitiful.
10% is a nice round figure which makes me think there is zero analysis behind this. If they had come out and said 7.34%, you’d at least get the feeling there was some analysis behind it. Like maybe someone took a couple of days and went back 10 or 15 years through the bond bills and estimated how much they would need on an ongoing basis and then crunched the numbers. 10% means to me it’s a complete wild ass guess.
That is a DAMN good point. There’s no way there was any empirical analysis behind this. It’s time that there was some legit legislative oversight as to how the beaucoups bucks the state forks over to Del-Tech are used.
For too long, a group of Del-Tech-connected legislators and influence peddlers have simply arranged for as much money as possible to go there. Don’t get me wrong–Del-Tech plays an integral part in preparing Delawareans for meaningful and essential jobs in our state. But there’s always been, at least since Lonnie George ascended the throne there, a disconnect between the funds allocated and how they’re used.
Let’s get some actual verifiable numbers out of the Legislators’ Employer of Last Resort before we just throw some ill-thought-out cash its way.