DL Open Thread: Friday, April 10, 2026

We lead off today with an IMPORTANT CORRECTION to my story about Krista Griffith’s job at that not-for-profit.  These key elements remain true:

Yes, she got the job.

Yes, the agency received Grant-In-Aid funding for the first time.

However, the agency had been receiving state funds all along.  From someone in a position to know:

For years, we had been receiving funding as a “pass through” from (I believe) DSCYF. In FY ’25, the State changed our funding so that it came from grant-in-aid as opposed to being a “pass-through.” An excerpt from a communication from the State said “Part of this funding award includes an amount previously provided to your organization as a ‘pass-through’ in the State of Delaware’s annual Appropriations Act. For Fiscal Year 2025 and beyond, the Joint Finance Committee has reallocated this funding to the annual Grants-in-Aid Act. Section 18(e) of the Grant-In-Aid Appropriations Bill provides that for this fiscal year only, your organization will be provided the previously issued pass-through allocation ($1,076,800) in a one-time payment that should begin to be processed by or around July 31st. For Fiscal Year 2026 and beyond, your organization will be expected to request this funding annually through a Grants-in-Aid application.”

In other words (my own), JFC and the Grants-In-Aid Committee provided funding through grants-in-aid that the agency had previously received via another manner.  While I own and regret the error, it doesn’t change the fact that Krista Griffith served on those committees and that these changes were effected only after she became the Executive Director of the Children’s Advocacy Center Of Delaware while still serving on the budget committees in Dover.  Oh, and, for the first year, the committees provided the funds via grant-in-aid without it having been requested by the agency via the Grant-In-Aid process.  Let me say this:  There’s only one way that that happens.  Her name is Krista Griffith.

Finally, A Less Unrighteous Way To Raise Revenue:

Lawmakers have introduced legislation aimed at modernizing Delaware’s corporate fee structure, with proposed increases expected to generate more than $150 million annually for the state.

Resentative Kerri Evelyn Harris, D-House Majority Leader Dover and Senate Majority Leader Bryan Townsend, D-Glasgow, Newark introduced House Bill 400. The measure would raise annual fees for limited liability companies and other alternative business entities, while also increasing fees for a range of services provided by the Delaware Division of Corporations.

Delaware is the legal home to more than 2-million business entities, including over 66% of Fortune 500 companies. State officials say fees and taxes collected through the Division of Corporations account for about 37% of the state’s total revenue, or roughly $2.56 billion.

Alternative entities — including general partnerships, limited liability companies, limited partnerships and related structures — currently contribute about 10% of that revenue. Under the proposal, annual fees for general partnerships, LLCs and limited partnerships would rise from $300 to $400. Registered series entities would increase from $75 to $100, while fees for limited liability partnerships and limited liability limited partnerships would increase from $200 to $300 per partner.

Still awfully cheap in my book.  But we need the money:

“During February’s Joint Finance Committee hearings, we heard compelling cases from our agency partners across the State about their operating budget requests and capital requirements to sufficiently serve the people of Delaware,” Senator Trey Paradee, D-Dover, chair of the Joint Finance Committee. “HB 400 is a responsible way to raise the revenue we need to balance our budget and ensure that we can continue funding the critical services that make Delaware an attractive place to live.”

Wilmington Gets ‘Better Tents’ For Homeless.  Gee, I wonder if they were able to return the shoddy tents they had initially bought.  I’m guessing ‘No’:

Wilmington’s unhoused community at Christina Park received a second set of new tents from the city Wednesday.

The first set distributed last week left residents drenched after a rainstorm proved they were not waterproof. The city partners with Friendship House to manage the park, and the organization’s staff provided the city with a list of approved tents that would adequately shelter residents from the elements.

But the city did not buy tents off of that list, leading to many residents getting wet during a rainstorm the same day new tents were installed.

Friendship House CEO Kim Eppehimer said she doesn’t want to throw the city under the bus, but it’s time for the Christina Park team to own up to the mistake.

“I think the city realized that they bought tents that they didn’t lay eyes on first… “ Eppehimer said. “You know, this is new for folks, and I think they realize that mistakes are going to happen; however, we can’t just accept that either, because these are people’s lives that we’re working with.”

Which is just one of the differences between Kim Eppehimer and John Carney.

More Carney blarney:

According to Carney’s office, it has spent about $4,000 for 105 of the old tents, about the same amount for 28 of the new tents and $70,000 for 70 platforms.

Wilmington officials are attempting to put rules in place that will govern management of the homeless encampment. The requirements have not been provided to residents in writing, and Christina Park resident Boz Malik said they seem to constantly evolve.

“Rules change every day,” he said. “They make this up. They have no idea what they’re doing.”

According to the contract between the city and Friendship House, signed in January, the plots would be 20 feet by 20 feet, and the tents would be 10 feet by 10 feet. Then Carney’s office revised the terms a day before tents started to be installed at the park. Now the plots are 15 feet by 15 feet.

Melania Claims That She’s Not An Epstein Victim.  Not aware that anyone had alleged that, but…:

7

Melania Trump reignited interest in the Jeffrey Epstein case Thursday by shockingly declaring she wasn’t the dead sex trafficker’s victim or accomplice — and then urging Congress to hold public hearings with victims to expose his associates.

The first lady delivered her stunning remarks in the ornate foyer of the White House, stoking speculation that she was trying to get ahead of a looming news report.

“I am not Epstein’s victim. Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump,” the publicity-wary former fashion model declared.

“Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach. To be clear, I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice, [Ghislaine] Maxwell.”

“I have never had any knowledge of Epstein’s abuse of his victims. I was never involved in any capacity,” she said.

The first lady acknowledged in her nearly 6-minute appearance the authenticity of a 2002 email chain between herself and Maxwell, which was released by the Justice Department in January, but said it was “trivial.”

That email read: “Dear GI How are you? Nice story about JE in NY mag. You look great on the picture. I know you are very busy flying all over the world. How was Palm Beach? I cannot wait to go down. Give me a call when you are back in NY. Have a great time! Love, Melania.”

Maxwell responded: “Sweet pea – thanks for your message. Actually plans changed again and I am now on my way back to NY… so I still do not think I have time to see you sadly. I will try and call though.”

Please note that she wrote ‘Sweet Pea’, not…something else.

I will spare you Trump’s graphic birthday greeting to Epstein.  Hey, man, just happy that Melania has put the story on the front pages again.

Epstein Survivors Respond:

Melania Trump has been accused of “shifting the burden” onto sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s survivors after her extraordinary statement at the White House.

In a joint statement released to the media, a group of survivors said the first lady had moved to “protect those in power”.

They accused her of “shifting the burden onto survivors under politicized conditions to protect those with power”.

The statement read:

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have already shown extraordinary courage by coming forward, filing reports, and giving testimony.

Asking more of them now is a deflection of responsibility, not justice.

It added:

It also diverts attention from [former attorney general] Pam Bondi, who must answer for withheld files and the exposure of survivors’ identities.

Those failures continue to put lives at risk while shielding enablers. Survivors have done their part. Now it’s time for those in power to do theirs.

Tell me again, who owns the Washington Post?:

In a missive from its editorial board, WaPo told the opponents of massive data centers that they were misguided, ill-informed, and out of touch. The headline established the tenor of the piece: “The anti-data center movement is growing — and becoming more unhinged.”  The opinion itself oozed condescension.

For proof of how “unhinged” the anti-data center proponents are, WaPo started with an anecdote about one anti-tech zealot shooting up the home of a pro-tech politician and leaving a note saying “NO DATA CENTERS.” I am not sure what their point is. There are 342,000,000 Americans. One gunman is not a meaningful sample.

“The incident illustrates how opposition to artificial intelligence can metastasize into an irrational frenzy.”

“It wouldn’t be the first time in history that deranged Luddites turn to violence to fight the advancement of frontier technology.”       

All of this is akin to standing on a shoreline, yelling at the rising ocean tides.

“Even as domestic opponents throw sand into the gears of progress, China’s buildout will continue unabated. Obstructionism aids America’s adversaries.”

So glad I canceled my subscription.

What do you want to talk about?