POLITICAL SHENANIGANS REGARDING HB 487 ??? YOU BE THE JUDGE!:guest post by Rich Collins
Jul 27th, 2010 by David Anderson
Today, Tuesday, July 27, I’ll be on WGMD radio with Bill Colley. We’ll be on from 5 to 6 PM. You can find WGMD at 92.7 on the FM dial. If you are out of range, click here to listen on the internet from anywhere in the world.
The segment will focus on HB 487, which some are calling the “double dipper” bill. This bill was sponsored by Rep. John Atkins in the House. Co-sponsors were Reps. Pete Schwartzkopf, Carson, Gilligan, Q. Johnson, Kowalko, Mitchell, and Mulrooney.
There are a number of fascinating questions about this bill, which passed the Delaware General Assembly and was signed by the Governor on July 12, 2010:
-WHY DOES IT FORCE DOUBLE DIPPING? – It forces Sussex County government to allow certain employees to “double dip.” Prior to this bill, you could not retire from the County and get your pension, then return to County employment and get a salary plus pension. Because of this bill, you can now retire from the county government, run for County Council or certain other positions, and then receive both your pension plus the salary for the new County government position.
-WHY USE FAST TRACKING? – This bill was introduced on June 22 and assigned to the Housing and Community Affairs committee. At that point there were only 4 days remaining in the Delaware General Assembly and no time for the public to get involved. On June 23, it was re-assigned to the House Adminstration committee, chaired by Pete Schwartzkopf. It was voted out of committee the very same day. On the next day, June 24, it was passed by the House. Two business days later, on the final day of the legislative session, HB 487 was passed by the Senate.
-WHY DID ONLY 2 OF 11 SUSSEX REPS OR SENATORS VOTE YES? – 9 Sussex County representatives and senators thought this bill was a bad idea. The only Sussex County elected officials who voted for this bill were Representatives Atkins and Schwarzkopf.
-WHY DID THE BILL PASS BY BARE MAJORITIES IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE? – This bill passed only because of party discipline. The vote was 21 yes, 10 no, 6 not voting and 4 absent in the House. In the Senate, it was 11 yes, 4 no, 4 not voting, and 2 absent. It appears that almost half the House and Senate knew this was not a worthy bill.
-WAS THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL TO ALLOW A RETIRING COUNTY COUNCIL EMPLOYEE TO RUN FOR SUSSEX COUNCIL THIS ELECTION CYCLE? – This was clearly demonstrated to be yes when a House amendment was defeated that would have delayed implementation until next year. Just a few days ago, a retiring county employee actually did file to run for Sussex County Council. Was this a bill for all the citizens of Delaware, or one that fulfilled the political needs of just a handful of elected “public servants?”
-WHY DOES THIS HIGHLY PAID SUSSEX COUNTY EMPLOYEE WANT TO RUN FOR COUNTY COUNCIL? – According to a Freedom of Information Action request, his salary was $74,400 and benefits were $34,612 (including health care insurance, pension, FICA, and vision/dental insurance). In the Coastal Point newspaper of 7/23, his major concern seems to be the fact that the number of county employees has been reduced through attrition, “but that puts a lot on the backs of other county employees who haven’t had a cost-of-living raise in two years.” Is this county employee/political candidate even aware that in 2009 the cost of living declined 1.7% and would have created a salary decrease if it was adhered to?
WHY WAS IT DIFFICULT TO FIND A SUSSEX COUNCIL CANDIDATE WITHOUT POLITICAL SHENANIGANS? – Was it because Sussex County hasn’t had a tax increase in 21 years, they have no general fund debt, their bond rating was just raised (improved), and there’s little chance of a tax increase for the forseeable future? Was it because they have reduced staff without layoffs or salary reductions and are still granting merit raises? Is it because, unlike our state government, Sussex County government has done exactly what conservatives have asked for by not growing government, taxes, and spending when all the rest of us are being forced to pull in our belts?
Listen this afternoon on 92.7 FM for a lot more information on this bill. Starting in September, we’ll be on the air every week highlighting the behind-the-scenes stories on many bills in our Delaware General Assembly.
Thanks,
Rich Collins
Note from me: The merit of the bill is a side issue to its timing. It was a bill designed to change the rules in the middle of the game. It should have been effective next year.
Rich,
Do you know why the County Council refused to answer either Atkins or the retired county employee (not Cordrey) who wrote requesting that the policy be changed?
Well I listened to Bill Colley, read an email from an avid opponent of Rich Collins, and read the above.
Obviously….OBVIOUSLY…since I was born at night, just not LAST NIGHT…..this little political maneuver was done to get this county employee the ability to run against Vance Phillips.
Why?
Well the Dems wormed iin Schwartzkopf but that was Rehoboth. We could live with that. Rehoboth nice fellas got a right to have a Dem candidate to represent them. Then they got the very fair and decent fellow, whose mother must be so proud of him for his high standards, honesty and loyalty, John Atkins, to join their ranks.
Vance Phillips is a real danger to them.
Cause the Dems/Left/Liberals….SHALL TAKE OVER THE WORLD, by hook, crook, or trickery. SUSSEX COUNTY IS THE ENEMY!
A problem here….and if you read from me there’s other thoughtful and almost intelligent folks like myself thinking the same sort of thing….why shouldn’t a Sussex county employee be able to retire, collect a pension, and run for an office, receiving, upon election, all the money and perks of office? If that person worked for….say…Grotto Pizza, he or she would be able to retire, get a pension, and work for the county no mind the pension.
Once again, I understand the timing, the duplicity of it….and it all reminds me how much I really admire John Atkins. I get that they rushed it through so they could throw Vance outta there.
Second, could be problem thing….Vance did, oncit, have a position as head of the Urquhart campaign. As I understand it he no longer has that position. Now I don’t know if such things are illegal, but if Mike Castle took a job as head of…say …the Rollins campaign….well I’d be bitching and moaning. But that crazy lady did call in on WGMD and she used that very point. They see a way to unseat Vance and they’re going after it.
all that being said….I don’t see Vance going down. He’s too beloved here in Sussex.
But hey, did I think those idiots would re-elect that fine, fine honest fellow John Atkins once again? No.
So don’t listen to me.
Is there a reason Democrats can’t find a candidate who is not a government employee? Russ McCabe (an alright guy) is a retired state employee. Dave Wilson’s opponent is a state employee. The Democrats have a lot to pick from since Delaware State Government is the biggest employer in the state. Can the Democrats actually find a candidate that isn’t getting a government pay check????
TW, you conveniently forgot to mention Rep. Lee, Manolokis(sp)?, Cathcart, Blakely. Sen. Simpson are also current or former state workers.
I know you just forgot to mention this since they are all Rs.
P.S. I know all the Ds that are doing the same so I will spare you the time of posting them.
Bottom line this is just as political trying to let Vance run unopposed as they claim it was passed for Cordrey.
Its America, let there be elections and the people decide?
I don’t really have a problem with ‘double-dipping’- if a man works for 30 years, he’s got his pension coming to him.
When you throw a man out of the party, and he comes back to power as a (D), expect (D) legislation. If this is a case of John carrying Pete’s water, it could be fatal in November. I’m not saying it is, but if I were Hastings, that’s the picture I would paint.
I agree with you. If people work for their money, they should be entitled to keep it. The problem with this bill is that it was rushed through to with an amendment to make it take effect next year rejected. It did not consult with county council and overruled home rule. The state has a right to regulate home rule, but if it is going to do something so drastic, should it not be publicly considered and explained.
This bill really gave the concept of local home rule a hit. I am not sure how good that is either. We should at least talked about the implications.
David, Rich stated Atkins wrote a letter asking the council to change this back in March. He also stated the council never responded. How much time do they need? Three months is plenty. If its that important now, why didnt they act before the state did it for them?
I loved how Rich said at the beginning he wasn’t going to campaign against anyone, even declining to mention Cordrey’s name, but by the end of his WGMD appearance was blasting the “bureaucrats” who wanted to become elected officials. Rich, a few points -
1. Not passing HB 487 wouldn’t have changed that situation. Cordrey could still have run and won, just not have received his pension during his 4-year term. He’d still be one of your scary bureaucrats now in office.
2. Shouldn’t it be up to the voters to decide who represents them? This election, they’ll get to choose between a double-dipping county retiree who presumably knows where a lot of bodies are buried (personnel directors deals with a ton of confidential information), versus a farmer-Realtor-Republican operative who by his own admission spent most of his waking hours this spring and early summer living outside his district and working on a congressional campaign. I agree, it’s not much of a choice. But it should be up to them if they want to pick the ex-bureaucrat.
Both are flawed candidates, from my perspective. Cordrey is going to get tagged as a double-dipper and professional bureaucrat (I think we saw the start of that today on WGMD). And Vance has a really tough row to hoe this time around. His involvement with Urquhart hasn’t won him any extra help from his own Republicans. If memory serves, he even lost his own voting district in Laurel last time around against an almost invisible opponent who barely campaigned. With Cordrey and Atkins running as a tag-team, there’s a very good chance Cordrey will pick up Millsboro and the surrounding environs. That puts the coast in play. A toss-up, all told.
Maybe they didn’t agree with it. It is called home rule. The state had the authority to do what it did. It should have done it with publicized hearings to see what the people wanted before over ruling their elected local leadership on a purely local matter.
David, the GA doesn’t hold hearings on every muni charter change. It simply changes them. Why should Sussex be any different?
With Cordrey and Atkins running as a tag-team, there’s a very good chance Cordrey will pick up Millsboro…
Maybe, maybe not- it depends whether or not Phillips can turn Adkins into a liability; the potential for so doing is definitely there.
“Hey Pete, where do you want this water…”
The Charter changes are submitted to the GA by the elected officials and barring extreme controversy like the Cheswold situation where they wanted an unqualified buddy to be town manager, they allow the local government to govern itself. Sussex County actually has home rule. They do not need to go to the GA for a change. This bill done in the manner it was is a major assault on home rule. That is difference.
Still, why didn’t the council do Rep. Atkins the courtesy of replying to him? Or to the other county retiree who wrote several months before? Is blowing constituents off standard Sussex SOP under President Phillips?
Fair question.
I bet there’s a story behind the council double-dipping rule, too.