Today we’ll see if there is any Senate concern over Sen. Nicole Poore’s blatant (IMO) conflict-of-interest over her sponsorship of HB 355, which would place her on the Ft. DuPont Redevelopment And Preservation Board. Meaning, she (and Deb Heffernan) would be on a board seeking funds from the General Assembly while both hold the power to fund those requests. Overlooked in this blatant conflict is the fact that the bill also places the head of the FOIA-exempt Delaware Prosperity Commission on the Board. HB 355 is a cash-grab, pure and simple. The bill is scheduled to be considered in today’s Senate Elections & Government Affairs Committee meeting. Poore is a member of that committee. According to Senate Rule 17, she should neither participate in discussion of the bill, nor should she vote on releasing the bill from committee. She may offer informational clarification, but that’s it. Up until now, the Senate has been insistent on higher ethical standards than the House (admittedly a very low bar). We may find out today just what the limits of those standards are. I still believe the bill should be reassigned to the Senate Rules & Ethics Committee. However, to be fair, the petition requesting the reassignment wasn’t submitted until last Friday, which was after the committee meetings had been posted.
Back to the mere day-to-day slog. Here is yesterday’s Session Activity Report. Well, this isn’t merely part of the slog: HB 372(Osienski), which basically establishes the parameters of the legalized marijuana infrastructure, cleared the House Appropriations Committee. I guess I could complain that the meeting wasn’t posted, but I’ll pass since this likely means that the money to begin implementation has been included in the Budget. For those of you wondering what Carney would do should the bill reach his desk, remember that there’s a third option beyond either signing or vetoing the bill. He can simply allow it to become law without his signature. I figure the cops are against it, but the Chamber could be for it (jobsjobsjobs). For John, that means, the Devil on one shoulder, an angel on the other.
Today’s other Senate Committee highlights:
SB 277 (S. McBride) ‘increases opportunities for federally qualified health centers (“FQHC”) and government-operated dental clinics to serve the indigent and other underserved communities with dental care and improves flexibility with updated provisional licensing processes for FQHC and government-operated dental clinic applicants. This Act assists FQHCs and government-operated dental clinics in recruiting dentists to serve those most in need.’ Health & Social Services.
SB 292 (Hansen) prospectively ‘allows the Department of Health and Social Services to expand the current program to include additional opioid antagonists’. The FDA is expected to approve a second drug in addition to naloxone for the emergency reversal of opioid overdoses this year. The bill would allow DHSS to permit the use of this second drug. Health & Social Services.
Although I rarely discuss bills that have passed in the originating chamber and are now being considered in the other chamber, I’ll make an exception for HB 371 (Osienski), which ‘removes all penalties for possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana, except for those who are under 21 years of age. Possession of more than 1 ounce of marijuana and public consumption remain unclassified misdemeanors.’ This bill is on the serious fast-track. Judiciary.
Today’s House Committee highlights:
HS1/HB 93 (Briggs King) ‘ creates the Grants-In-Aid Committee. The Committee is a joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives. The purpose of the Committee is to view applications for grants-in-aid and to develop and recommend to the Joint Finance Committee the grants-in-aid appropriations bill.’ It’s a bipartisan bill. I have one question, though. I thought the purpose of creating a separate committee was to take this task away from the Joint Finance Committee. However, the bill does not specify that its members not also serve on the other money committees. Administration.
I totally support HB 411 (Schwartzkopf), and can only say “It’s about time.” Which is literally what the bill is about. It’s a Constitutional Amendment that would eliminate an arcane provision in the Delaware Constitution that essentially requires the General Assembly to hang around on June 30 until after midnight so that they can go into Special Session. Why? So that the General Assembly can subsequently call itself back into session w/o requiring the Governor to call the session. I’m sure it seems kind-of esoteric, but everybody and anybody who has wasted innumerable hours waiting for the Witching Hour knows why this is a good bill. This is the first leg of the Constitutional Amendment, but I find it difficult to imagine any legislator opposing it. Administration.
HB 351 (Morrison) ‘requires candidates for either House of the General Assembly to obtain a criminal history background check to ensure that they have not been convicted of or plead guilty to any crime that, per the Delaware state constitution, disqualifies them from holding said office.’ Administration.
HB 235 (Lynn) ‘is the Bill of Rights for Individuals Experiencing Homelessness to ensure that all individuals, regardless of housing status, have equal opportunity to live in decent, safe, sanitary, and healthful accommodations and enjoy equality of opportunities. To that end, this Act sets forth the rights of individuals experiencing homelessness and creates a process by which the State Human Relations Commission and the Division of Human Relations may accept and investigate complaints of discriminatory treatment, attempt conciliation, and refer enforcement actions to the Department of Justice where necessary.’ I think this is a great bill. We’ll have to see if the legislators feel the same way. Judiciary.
HB 396 (Dorsey Walker), well, let’s just share the synopsis:
It has been the case for several decades that when a juvenile is arrested or charged with certain crimes, the child’s school is notified with an “Attorney General’s letter” regardless of whether the crime occurred on school property or had anything at all to do with school. Children can then face disciplinary consequences in school, including being placed in an alternative setting, or even expelled. Since they face consequences in the justice system, this creates the possibility of double punishment. This Act codifies the notification process, limiting notifications to violent felonies, crimes that occur on school property or at a school event, or where the alleged victim attends the same school.