“Hey Buzz! Look! Its an alien………Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha“ Some of you may remember that line from the first Pixar movie called “Toy Story“ Basically that line was used by Woody to embarrass the new toy Buzz Lightyear who took aliens quite seriously. The reason I bring this up is to exemplify the point that often when you want to sneak something past someone’s watchful eye, you direct their attention elsewhere.
So as I too got carried away with this “Minner veto thing”, and then watched an all but unanimous first vote in the Senate, instantly dissolve with the entire McCloskey faction voting to sustain the veto…., I got an uneasy feeling that something was being sneaked past me, while my attention was directed towards this standing room only theatrical performance….
If one goes back two years…before there was such a thing as “bloggers”, the Senate did not have to be so sneaky in its arrangements. It could do whatever it damned well please and only 22 (21 plus the Lt. Gov.) human beings would ever know……. With bloggers invading the night air of June 30th en masse and injecting themselves into and thwarting last minute deals (remember last year)…….. the most effective tool available to diminish their influence, would be to wait until they arrived, then throw a meaty bone as far from one as possible….. (as far as I know, all Delaware bloggers like meat. Some the size of Burris and Matthews, like it a lot…. 
(Really, I tried…. I struck it 6 times, but on the 7th proof, could not resist……sorry guys….)
So with this uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach, I went back looking to see if my hunch was correct….
There was a lot to look over. I am not through yet. But something I saw did catch my eye and I would like to share it with those of you who sat upstairs in the “peanut gallery” or listened to in some office as it was piped in…..
I’m sure with all of the excitement no one remembers Senate Bill 331 as midnight approached.
When dealing with Code, it can be overwhelming to keep the passages straight. As a Senator on the floor, there is considerable trust involved in voting yea or nay. There is no time for research. You are told by the author what the bill does, and you make a snap decision yea or nay…..based on what he tells you…. So if someone tells you something, and it is different from what he says, ….there is no way of rectifying it……
We have a lot of good things in our Delaware Senate, but this is primarily why those things which are messed up with our fair state, become that way…. FOIA access to all caucus meetings, would slow down the process at first, since there would be no secrets to rush through the last minute, but….after a bill had been vetted, and solid compromises performed, the “fixed” version of the bill would sail through both houses and be granted the Governor’s ink. Such is the fate of all good legislation.
There is only one reason for not putting both House’s caucus meetings under FOIA… It limits their ability to sneak things past you….. (Of course they will say it impinges on their freedom to discuss openly and freely, but…..we know the real reason…….)
So back to SB 331.
From here the post gets B….O….R….I….N…..G (if you have the attention span of a Donvitti…) But if you are truly interested in how things are sneaked through in the dead of the night….. you may, like I did, find it fascinating……
I laugh when incumbent legislators sit on auditorium stages in debates with their challenges and impound upon “their experience”. If anyone reads the actual bills laid on the desk of the Senate, they understand that all the Senate does outside the Joint Finance Committee ( no they don’t finance the purchase of joints)…is move words around… That is all they do…. “To amend “XYZ” by striking “X” and replacing it with “Y” is their sole function…. They then vote those changes up or down.. Some legislators, as noted by a commenter on both Down With Absolutes and Rick Jensen’s WDEL show, even have to be told by someone…….how to vote……
Occasionally I kid myself and say I have a great mind. But following within my head, all the switches made to this one bill during the wee hours of July 1st, 2008, was too much for what little grey matter I have left. I was completely stymied until my friends “Cut” and “Paste” volunteered to help me…. With their assistance, some shape, form, or image began to emerge….
So with the help of my friends, I will show you what really happened…. not on the floor of the Senate…. but where the “real action” was….deep within the words of the code….
Begin with existing Code. Title 29….Section 69 (Was that number chosen on purpose?) Procurement Section 6904……Exceptions
……(a) through (l)……
(m) This chapter shall not apply to the Department of Education in the procurement of goods and/or services from the University of Delaware, Delaware State University and Delaware Technical and Community College.
(n) This chapter shall not apply to contracts entered into by the Board of Pension Trustees, authorized pursuant to § 8308(c)(5) of this title, with respect to the procurement of financial services, including advisory, management and investment services relating to any fund administered by the Delaware Public Employees’ Retirement System. (70 Del. Laws, c. 601, § 4; 71 Del. Laws, c. 4, § 5; 71 Del. Laws, c. 132, § 368; 71 Del. Laws, c. 378, § 112; 73 Del. Laws, c. 310, § 23; 76 Del. Laws, c. 80, § 67.)
………………………………..
That is our base. That is what existed in the Delaware Code up to midnight June 30th, 2008….
Ok…. so amid all of the hoopla…. SA 331 is laid on the Senate table…….Necessary rules are suspended as they are for everything laid on the table during the last day of the session… SA 331 says this:
SENATE BILL NO. 331
AN ACT TO AMEND TITLES 7 & 29 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO PROCUREMENT.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE:
Section 1. Amend §6904(n), Title 29, Delaware Code by deleting Subsection (n) in its entirety and replacing it with a new Subsection (n) to read as follows:
“(n)(i) This Chapter shall not apply to any State Agency for those public works projects where seventy five percent (75%) or more of the funds raised for the purchase of materials or services, or for seventy five percent (75%) or more for services to be performed, are donated by private entities such as, but not limited to, individuals, civic groups, corporations, foundations or non profit groups and only twenty five percent (25%) or less of the funding is procured from public funds“, subject to the following provisions: 1) for any such cooperative public works project, the first one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) of public funds shall be exempted; and 2) for any cooperative public works project where the twenty five percent (25%) public share of the funding exceeds one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), only the public portion of the project funds shall be subject to this Chapter.”
(ii) Any private entity which donates any supplies, materials, or services, such as but not limited to, professional services, engineering services, design or labor services, without the expectation of monetary or other compensation as provided in Subsection (i) above, shall not be liable in any civil court for any property damage or personal injury, or death alleged to be associated with rendering such services, unless it is established that said damage was caused willfully, wantonly, recklessly or by gross negligence on the part of such private entity.”
(iii) The Contracting and Purchasing Advisory Council may develop guidelines to establish how the determination of value of donated goods or services is to be performed for purposes of determining compliance with this section pursuant to § 6913 of this chapter.
Section 2. Amend Title 7, Delaware code by adding a new Section 4707 to read as follows:
“§4707. Permitting. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, there shall be no county or local permits required upon lands which are within State Parks or within the jurisdictional control of the Division of Parks and Recreation. For all outdoor lighting projects and projects exceeding one million dollars ($1,000,000.00), the Division of Parks and Recreation shall grant the county or local planning agencies a thirty (30) day period to review and comment on the plans for said project.”
So we cut out section (n) and paste it over the code section (n) which it replaces…. WTF? Suddenly the clause in the original code exempting contracts entered into by the Board of Pension Trustees, relating to any fund administered by the Delaware Public Employees’ Retirement System just got erased by something totally unrelated and inconsequential… State Employee’s Retirement Funds, just got deregulated, eliminated, or both!….. in the blink of McDowell’s eye…. Has anyone heard about it yet?
Someone seems to have caught it. Immediately afterward, Amendment 1 is voted and passed……20 Yes to 1 No……
Amendment 1 states…
AMEND Senate Bill No. 331 by striking lines 1 through 10 and substituting in lieu thereof the following:
“Section 1. Amend §6904, Title 29 of the Delaware Code by adding a new subsection (o) to read as follows:”.
FURTHER AMEND Senate Bill No. 331, on lines 11 and 16, by redesignating the subparagraph references “(ii)” and “(iii)” to “(o)(i)” and “(ii)”.
So going back to SB 331 and using my friends “Cut” and “Paste”, we get this little nugget…….
AMEND Senate Bill No. 331 by striking lines 1 through 10 and substituting in lieu thereof the following:
“Section 1. Amend §6904, Title 29 of the Delaware Code by adding a new subsection (o) to read as follows:”.
FURTHER AMEND Senate Bill No. 331, on lines 11 and 16, by redesignating the subparagraph references “(ii)” and “(iii)” to “(o)(i)” and “(ii)”.
Ok, so section (n) covering State Employee Pension Plans is now back in…. was it truly just an accident? Or an attempt to rob it? Hmmm……
So what got cut?.. The new revised version of Senate 331 just lost all of this……
“(n)(i) This Chapter shall not apply to any State Agency for those public works projects where seventy five percent (75%) or more of the funds raised for the purchase of materials or services, or for seventy five percent (75%) or more for services to be performed, are donated by private entities such as, but not limited to, individuals, civic groups, corporations, foundations or non profit groups and only twenty five percent (25%) or less of the funding is procured from public funds“, subject to the following provisions: 1) for any such cooperative public works project, the first one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) of public funds shall be exempted; and 2) for any cooperative public works project where the twenty five percent (25%) public share of the funding exceeds one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), only the public portion of the project funds shall be subject to this Chapter.”
(ii) Any private entity which donates any supplies, materials, or services, such as but not limited to, professional services, engineering services, design or labor services, without the expectation of monetary or other compensation as provided in Subsection (i) above, shall not be liable in any civil court for any property damage or personal injury, or death alleged to be associated with rendering such services, unless it is established that said damage was caused willfully, wantonly, recklessly or by gross negligence on the part of such private entity.”
(iii) The Contracting and Purchasing Advisory Council may develop guidelines to establish how the determination of value of donated goods or services is to be performed for purposes of determining compliance with this section pursuant to § 6913 of this chapter.
and had it replaced with “this”……
“Section 1. Amend §6904, Title 29 of the Delaware Code by adding a new subsection (o) to read as follows:”.
FURTHER AMEND Senate Bill No. 331, on lines 11 and 16, by redesignating the subparagraph references “(ii)” and “(iii)” to “(o)(i)” and “(ii)”.
And so currently if this bill comes to fruition…..the Delaware Code in this section will read as follows…….
(m) This chapter shall not apply to the Department of Education in the procurement of goods and/or services from the University of Delaware, Delaware State University and Delaware Technical and Community College.
(n) This chapter shall not apply to contracts entered into by the Board of Pension Trustees, authorized pursuant to § 8308(c)(5) of this title, with respect to the procurement of financial services, including advisory, management and investment services relating to any fund administered by the Delaware Public Employees’ Retirement System. (70 Del. Laws, c. 601, § 4; 71 Del. Laws, c. 4, § 5; 71 Del. Laws, c. 132, § 368; 71 Del. Laws, c. 378, § 112; 73 Del. Laws, c. 310, § 23; 76 Del. Laws, c. 80, § 67.)
(o) FURTHER AMEND Senate Bill No. 331, on lines 11 and 16, by redesignating the subparagraph references “(ii)” and “(iii)” to “(o)(i)” and “(ii)
What? That is what it says… That is what 20 out of 21 Senators voted for……. Look again at Amendment 1. It creates a section (o) (allowing (n) to stay: pensioners can now relax)…and section (o) has none of the first ten lines in the original bill, because they were stricken. Very specifically it states that Section (o) will start with the words “FURTHER AMEND……”
Even I was fooled at first.. “Oh, I thought, since they replaced the (n) with an (o) they have to redesignate the subsections as well… That’s harmless…” But a search on the words “FURTHER AMEND” within the Delaware government’s own website, shows that this clause means any law can be injected into that spot in the future.. The vote was to “FURTHER AMEND” and it passed 20 to 1; therefore further amending the bill is quite legal.
So whereas the synopsis of bill 331 sounds benign…..
This Bill provides an additional exception to the State procurement process by recognizing those situations where private entities voluntary raise and donate materials or services for public works projects and 25% or less of the project is paid for from public funds. A private entity which donates supplies, materials and services cannot be held liable in any action for these donations unless it is determined that the donor acted with gross negligence.
Aw… how nice….. I’d vote for that…. It would be terrible if churches got sued because they were helping out our government….. But again, you have to remember who was the original sponsor of this bill…..
Here is what the amendment erased. Psychologically, the twenty Senators have in their mind that this is the bill upon which they voted…
This Chapter shall not apply to any State Agency for those public works projects where seventy five percent (75%) or more of the funds raised for the purchase of materials or services, or for seventy five percent (75%) or more for services to be performed……………………….
In other words …. this bill says that any quasi government organization, with only twenty five percent of its funds coming from the government, is exempt from all procurement laws…. which include nepotism clauses, contracts to relatives, regulations against conflicts of interest…etc, etc…. will not apply to quasi governmental organizations. Let’s see, does the exemption include corporations?……..
…..by private entities such as, but not limited to, individuals, civic groups, corporations,…….
Interesting……
At some point over the summer this bill SB 331 WILL be rewritten….Oops…I meant “FURTHER AMENDED”…:)
Hmmm…. Isn’t the SEU only slightly funded by public money….. Hmmm…. Isn’t that public funding less than 25%…… Hmmm….. Isn’t the same McDowell who is the sponsor of this Bill, and its amendment, thought to be positioning himself as head of the SEU in order to control the estimated 100 million dollars that the SEU will control?
Oh…. I now see that SA 2 has been added….. even though it was not voted on however but was PWB ie placed with (the) Bill on the Senate table…..
SA 2 reads…..
‘(o)(i) For those public works projects where seventy five percent (75%) or more of the funds raised for the purchase of supplies, materials or services, or seventy five percent (75%) or more of the services to be performed, are donated by private entities such as, but not limited to, individuals, civic groups, corporations, foundations or non profit groups and only twenty five percent (25%) or less of the funding is procured from public funds, any private entity which donates any supplies, materials, or services, such as but not limited to, professional services, engineering services, design or labor services, without the expectation of monetary or other compensation, shall not be liable in any civil court for any property damage or personal injury, or death alleged to be caused by such supplies, materials, or services, unless it is established that said damage was caused willfully, wantonly, recklessly or by gross negligence on the part of such private entity.
Hmmm… is it just me or is there something missing from that second amended bill……Let’s put the two together: the original, and SA 2……….
Original:
…………..only twenty five percent (25%) or less of the funding is procured from public funds“, subject to the following provisions: 1) for any such cooperative public works project, the first one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) of public funds shall be exempted; and 2) for any cooperative public works project where the twenty five percent (25%) public share of the funding exceeds one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), only the public portion of the project funds shall be subject to this Chapter.
As Amended by SA2
………only twenty five percent (25%) or less of the funding is procured from public funds, any private entity which donates any supplies, materials, or services, such as but not limited to, professional services, engineering services, design or labor services, without the expectation of monetary or other compensation, shall not be liable in any civil court for any property damage or personal injury, or death alleged to be caused by such supplies, materials, or services, unless it is established that said damage was caused willfully, wantonly, recklessly or by gross negligence on the part of such private entity.
Hmmm….again is it just me…or is the $100,000 limitation cap, (apparently forced upon him in his own committee), all but disappeared…….
Of course when you are talking about $100,000,000 dollars, not being exempted from the code for the tune of $99,900,000 dollars could cost one a pretty penny……..
So you see, the phrase “writing in Code” has taken on a whole new meaning……………………..
So why did I go through all this trouble?
You see, when the code is FURTHER AMENDED, there will be no record of what it once was……or was intended to say.
Now… there is.
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 3, 2008 at 9:08 pm
anon
Wow, sneaky, sneaky, sneaky. So that’s what it was all about……
Thanks for the head’s up….
July 4, 2008 at 6:33 pm
anon 2
I would like to know which incident triggered the legislation in the first place. Surely it could not be accusations of self-dealing for personal gain leveled at McDowell by the blogosphere. Surely it was some totally innocent church that got sued for donating volunteer time to a public project. Do share your story, Sen. McDowell!
July 5, 2008 at 12:47 am
State Worker
Whatever the subject matter of the amendment to current Code might actually effect, you make at least three very important technical errors. First, an amendment to a bill, such as SA 1 to SB 331 only goes to change the bill itself. Your cut and paste of one of the amendments to read “Amend SB 331 to read so-and-so” is not correct. Only lines 1-10 were cut out and new lines were placed instead in the bill.
If you look closely, this bill did not pass both chambers, and so it cannot become law – it dies unless there is a special session and the House considers it before election day. Had it passed, a full “cut-and-paste version of the bill, called an engrossed version, would be created and reviewed first by legislative council, then by Governor’s staff atty and finally, if signed by the Governor, by the Code Revisors, who are the ones who actually make this stuff fit in the Delaware Code as it is supposed to. Code Revisors are authorized to make minor modifications to legislation to make it fit, things like misstating a sub-section or something.
Finally, there is no shell game here, at least when it comes to there being a recod of this. The web site will always have it, so will the legislative record. All of this stuff can be accessed by the public. Your consiracy theory runneth amok.
Now, is it possible for legislation that does dastardly stuff to get passed in the blink of an eye without public input – you betcha. Many of the bills considered by both houses in the waning hours of a session are done under suspension of rules, meaning there are no rules, like requirements of committee meetings, etc. I hate to say it, but you are jousting at windmills on this one.
If I were to hazard a guess on how this particular bill came to be amended and re-amended, it would go somthing like this. Someone drafts the bill and either uses an old version of the code or simply makes a mistake on the correct sub-section in the first version It is not caught and goes to print. On review by staff attorneys, they say – hold the presses! This screws up current law! And then an amendment is drafted. It is not exactly to the liking of everyone, and so another amendment is drafted and introduced.
Now whether this is actually a good piece of legislation or not, who knows – it came from either a lobbyist whose client wanted it or from someone who complained about an anecdotal incident or unfounded fear to their legislator. If it was the first instance the lobbyist probably wrote the first version of the bill and would have no care about the issue of the public pension system, and the “monkeying” was innocent or at least inadvertant. If it was the second instance, the staff attorney drafted the bill in about a half an hour and reviewed it maybe once because it was prepped at the very end of the legislative session.
Sometimes a cigar is still a cigar…..
July 5, 2008 at 3:27 am
kavips
Yes, maybe….. but other times its a big fat joint….. It kinda depends upon who rolled it, now doesn’t it?…….. And the roller of this one …….has his name next to the word: sponsor.
To be FURTHERED AMENDED.
July 5, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Nancy Willing
The plot THICKENS!!!!
July 6, 2008 at 10:39 am
kavips
Dear State Worker…
Your critique was received with pleasure. The time and insight you put into your reply was certainly appreciated and pondered.
Just a couple of questions and concerns….
I understand where you are coming from, and thanks to your insight I was finally able to see where a discrepancy lies. Before I jump into detail, I must say that I hope your interpretation is correct, whereas if mine were, it would imply that something really sick was going on within Legislative Hall.
The discrepancy lies in the interpretation of “as follows”. I can see how one could have achieved the meaning you eventually bring out….
But the analysis of the bill after your interpretation is utilized, brings up another discrepancy which obfuscates the matter further….
Why if there are three sections to the bill, is the first one designated with an “o”, the second with an “o (i)” and the third with an “o (ii)” ? This is most curious because every other piece of legislation is numbered in the likes of “n (i), “n (ii)”, and “n (iii). It appears as if they wanted o(i) to disappear, only to be reinvented as SA Amendment 2 describes, without the $100,000 cap?
Obviously asking a legislator themselves would be pointless in this case, since some do not even know which way to vote, much less what the meaning of what they are voting on, portrays. But those Code Revisers actually doing the rewriting, I think, would be more expert at answering this, than any of our elected officials.
Can you please explain to the Delaware Public, as to why this “slip up” could, or would occur at all?
I’m aware that the bill did not pass both chambers. Which makes one wonder why it was attempted at all, especially upon the final night of legislative session? The question needs to be pondered over the entire break until the next session reconvenes. Why was this whole charade performed on the final night? (McDowell does not face re-election this term)
Why did a Bill, any bill, come up, erase the exemption for the State Workers pension plan, then reinstate the plan’s exemption, but in doing so leave the original bill too damaged forcing it to require another amendment, which does not get voted on, but is laid with the Bill, which eliminates the $100,000 cap for this exemption?
Why, would someone go through all that trouble, if not to hide something and sneak it through? There was considerable effort given to accomplishing this “triple lateral” play, Why, especially if the House would not even see the Bill in its final session?
Furthermore, could you with your wisdom and intelligence please explain to the Delaware Public,… as to how this slight of hand could be construed in any other way, but nefarious intentions?
Last of all, I hope you could provide the Delaware Public some insight as to how we could tell whether or not, a web link had been added to or detracted from since was original published? If the next session opens and this bill gets passed by the House without $100, 000 caps, how can we, the public, determine that SB331 returns to the Senate to be re-debated, since the $100,000 caps were one Senators requirement stipulation to get this bill out of committee?
I look forward to your expert reply.
July 8, 2008 at 6:24 am
State Worker
My first thought was to simply respond that I have no idear and leave it at that. But I decided you were actually calling me out as some sort of shill. While the first thought might have been in my best interest, I pulled the bill and read it all carefully. I have several observations.
“Why if there are three sections to the bill, is the first one designated with an “o”, the second with an “o (i)” and the third with an “o (ii)” ? This is most curious because every other piece of legislation is numbered in the likes of “n (i), “n (ii)”, and “n (iii). It appears as if they wanted o(i) to disappear, only to be reinvented as SA Amendment 2 describes, without the $100,000 cap?”
You are mistaking sections of the Code with sections of the bill itself, I think. There are three sections of the bill. Section 1 deals with a specific subsection of the code: section 6904(n) of title 29 originally. Then someone found the error of knocking out the pension system. In SA1, they fixed the original error and made another. They created a missing subsection [i.e. they ended up, as you note, with o, o(i) and o(ii)]. This is something the Code revisors could have fixed. However, it appears that they wanted to actually combine o and o(i) into one subsection. Someone also apparently had some policy discussion about the $100,000 limit, because, again, as you note, it did not make it to the “final” version of the bill. That policy change was potentially troubling to someone, since it never got worked again – SA2 was only placed with the bill. It could also be that whoever drafted SA2 screwed up for the third time under intense pressure of the end of session. It could also be that the Senate simply ran out of time for this.
And, I grant you it could also be some shady policy making, but this is a lot of effort to go through to get a version of a bill you actually want done. The more a legislative body sees a piece of legislation and sees that there are major screw-ups taking time and energy to sort out, the less likely they are to actually work it. That is the reason you very often see substitute bills instead of major reworks done via amendment from the sponsor.
“Obviously asking a legislator themselves would be pointless in this case, since some do not even know which way to vote, much less what the meaning of what they are voting on, portrays. But those Code Revisers actually doing the rewriting, I think, would be more expert at answering this, than any of our elected officials.”
Well, you could ask the sponsor. You could also ask the staff attorney or lobbyist who dealt with the bill, but they are under no obligation to talk to you . And frankly, I would think this is not even something that FOIA application could clear up, because the inteniton of a single person is not always known from the record as it exists. In fact, in this case you have access to all the FOIA-able material in my best guess. Remember that lawmaking is not the orderly process that you learned in civics. It is akin to making scrapple. Some parts make the dish but you really don’t want to see them going in the pot.
“Can you please explain to the Delaware Public, as to why this “slip up” could, or would occur at all?”
I’ve tried to give the best explanation possible not having been there for the discussions between whomever wanted the bill and whomever drafted it. My bet is that something got lost in translation, which was compounded by a goof-up, which lead to a giant expulsion of gas, after which someone probably felt at least a little better and someone was not as happy.
“I’m aware that the bill did not pass both chambers. Which makes one wonder why it was attempted at all, especially upon the final night of legislative session? The question needs to be pondered over the entire break until the next session reconvenes. Why was this whole charade performed on the final night? (McDowell does not face re-election this term)”
Who knows, maybe it was intended to appease a constituent (just because you aren’t up for election doesn’t mean you don’t do “relations”). Maybe there was a specific project in mind for this to apply to – my bet considering the language in the second section of the bill – but all the screw-ups put it to rest and there is an opportunity to address it in January before the project begins or undergoes its next iteration. Again, actually asking the Sponsor or someone involved will give you a better idea than wildly speculating. McDowell might give a rational explanation and he might not. In either event you would have either a satisfactory explanation or confirmation of sorts of ill-winds.
“Why did a Bill, any bill, come up, erase the exemption for the State Workers pension plan, then reinstate the plan’s exemption, but in doing so leave the original bill too damaged forcing it to require another amendment, which does not get voted on, but is laid with the Bill, which eliminates the $100,000 cap for this exemption?
Why, would someone go through all that trouble, if not to hide something and sneak it through? There was considerable effort given to accomplishing this “triple lateral” play, Why, especially if the House would not even see the Bill in its final session?”
As I said, there are much easier ways to slip something through without a whimper. This effort that you describe would only call attention to the bill.
“Last of all, I hope you could provide the Delaware Public some insight as to how we could tell whether or not, a web link had been added to or detracted from since was original published? If the next session opens and this bill gets passed by the House without $100, 000 caps, how can we, the public, determine that SB331 returns to the Senate to be re-debated, since the $100,000 caps were one Senators requirement stipulation to get this bill out of committee?”
All I can tell you is that you know more of technology than me. I can barely post this message. I can also say that you would be hard pressed to find better, non-partisan folks than those on legislative council and in the administrative sections if the legislative branch. It is unlikely they would ever eliminate or add pieces to the legislative history. Like the rest of us you will have to watch in January to see if a similar bill is introduced and in what form. You could also ask around to people who know and not just speculate in wild directions.
“Furthermore, could you with your wisdom and intelligence please explain to the Delaware Public,… as to how this slight of hand could be construed in any other way, but nefarious intentions?”
“I look forward to your expert reply.”
At this point I get the sense you are being condescending or implying I have something to do with this bill. I am merely an observer of this process for many years – with a dollop of participation. I often find it interesting that the first impression of bloggers and commenters is that something is amiss.
Do legislators have agendas? Yes, otherwise they would not be politicians. Do those agendas sometimes run contrary to popular belief and/or desire? Yes. Is it always (or even usually) nefarious? No. My experience is that in most matters, in most situations, legislators are trying to do the “right” thing. What is “right” as a matter of public policy sometimes is not always evident on its face, and nor is the definition a static one. In the broad scheme Conservatives may believe that giving a free rein to business is the recipe; Liberals may think that more appropriate regulation of industry is the key. Both are perfectly good policy positions; neither can be accomplished wholesale – they must be done one piece of legislation at a time, one budget at a time. Slowly but surely. Some of those pieces of legislation will be supported by folks that would seem averse to the overall position, but supportive of the particular step it takes. Instantly assigning mal-intent to any legislator on a given issue is foolhardy.
Take, for example, the issue surrounding the eminent domain bill. Is it good policy to try to avoid the tyranny of government against hard-working individuals? I would say a resounding yes. Is it also perhaps a good policy for the state govenment to cede to the local to provide the best governance for the local populace. I would also say, in most instances, yes. Is it also a perfectly credible and useful public policy for the government to have the power to invigorate the public landscape and economy, even using the ultimate tool of eminent domain? A tougher sell, but still a valid policy, and one that will have supporters that are not “evil” or “malicious” or even “wrong”. But what does the blogoshere do: It soundly proclaims that anyone who would not vote to override a veto (which while on its face looks like the same thing as voting against the bill is really not) is suddenly anathema to good government. Legislators know they have to live with their votes, but remember that they make a lot of them, some you may not want ot go away on another issue or two. This is a perfectly valid point for a campaign against those who voted against the override, but these are not evil people – they are only being judged by folks who have no sense of proportion, patience, and nuance in politics.
Elsewhere in the blogoshere there is a post wondering why legislators and other officials avoid them even more assiduously than the regular media. Perhaps it is because there is too much questioning and not enough listening for the answer. When one wants to hear oneself talk one rarely looks for anything other than an opening in the words and actions of another to give one’s opinion yet another way. Perhaps it is because the blogoshere always looks for the lowest common denominator, often without knowing the entire equation, and is bound by no measure of professionalism to at least search for the answer before spouting. Like anything, when you are being two things you can be neither effectively. “Citizen Journalist” is an inherently conflicting moniker.
There are those in the Delaware Blogoshere that I greatly respect for their passion, their insight and their sheer tenancity. I know that the Bluewater deal would not have gone the way it did with out the likes of Tommy Noyes and others. (It also could have gone forward with a few less damaged goods if the “they’re evil” mentality had not been so evident in others.) This blog in particular, I find to be, for the most part, an exercise in trying to get “it” and making a real attempt at being level and contientious.
At the same time I am not saying there is no gamesmanship in the legislative and governing processes, only that those who view the game should educate themselves first and speculate after. Even those with many years of experience and “insider status” don’t always get it right. But the fact is, you have to be involved first and sully yourself before you can begin to know some semblance of the truth. Some in the blogoshere have taken that track and are seeing the benefit of at least playing lip-service to the idea that these folks are, after all, just humans – with all the fortunes and frailties of any person. They just happen to hold the keys to government.
July 8, 2008 at 6:35 am
State Worker
Actually, now that I look at SA1 again, it knocked out all of the first subparagraph – it would have been labelled correctly o(i) and o(ii), but it wouldn’t have actually had the substance of the first subsection init to make any sense or context. For example section (i) would have then made reference to the limitation of liability in example of projects found in section (i). It was then internally inconsistent. As I said, someone just screwed the pooch on this drafting job….
July 8, 2008 at 8:45 am
kavips
Dear State Worker:
Apparently you have taken my compliments as condescension. They were not intended as such. But I can see that in today’s world, where chivalry is dead, that one might take such old fashioned sentiments, and wonder if they were made in jest.
I think the quality of your answer would prove to all who perpetually read this, that they were aptly used to describe the insight into this topic which you provide.
If I could make a comment worthy of a chuckle, just between the two of us , we have created the longest thread in the Delawarean blog world, with only three posts. (lol)
However in seriousness, from your long statement it appears that we share the same point of view of our entire legislative process. As you well know the difference between good and bad legislation is the devil in the details.
Your assistance in helping us investigate those details, has been a public service. I want to thank you for the time and effort you chose to take with your response….(no snark intended) Were more to respond like you, our state would truly be a greater place, run on facts and less on characterizations of the like which you previously spoke.
As to you rereading of SA1….. it appears that we both saw the same thing…
Any insight you can provide, either positive or negative, will always be appreciated here….
July 8, 2008 at 4:55 pm
State Worker
I am a bit long-winded. Thanks for the compliments. I misread them.