I am writing this letter as a Democrat and retired state employee. I voted for you because I thought that you were an astute businessman and after Governor Minner anyone would be better. More jobs left the state in eight years under Governor Minner, than all the previous Governors. It is wrong for you to take office and expect the state employees to take a reduction in salaries to help balance the budget and here are the reasons why: State employees did not create the financial problems that Delaware is experiencing. The financial problems were created by the previous Governor, because of her inability to do the right thing. She let Nathan Hayward deplete the transportation fund and threw millions of dollars out the window on the Indian River Bridge. Lawsuits costing the state millions of dollars prevailed and many are still pending, because of her inability to place competent people as heads of various departments. The legislators did not lift one finger to stop her. Governor, you were the State Treasurer. Do you mean to tell the people of the State of Delaware that you had no idea that the state finances were going down the tubes, due to economic times and mismanagement by the administration and legislative branches? Shouldn’t you, as well as the Executive and Legislative Branches be held accountable for the financial problems we encounter today? At no time during Minner’s eight years did you or any legislators speak out against her failed policies, or her choice of poor leaders. Reducing state employee’s salaries will not solve your problem today or next year. You and the legislators have to down-size state government. You and the legislators know this, yet are not willing to do the right thing. The way to correct the problem is by attrition through retirements and layoffs. Some of the legislators will remember 1982, where the state downsized state government. You and the legislators have been given alternatives other than reducing state employee salaries, but neither wants to listen. All you need to do is to do the right thing. You were elected by the people to represent the people. The state employees didn’t get a raise in 2008 and will not get one in 2009. They are doing their share to help the state during these hard economic times. The only way to dig yourself out of this hole is to downsize state government. It took the Democrats 26 years to regain the House, and the betting man I am, they will lose the House in 2010, if they vote to cut state employees salaries. It won’t take that many votes in an off year election to change leadership. I hope that you and the legislators will take a serious look at the alternatives and remember the state employees did not create the problem. The Governor and legislators are responsible for the size of State Government. After spending my entire adult life as a Democrat and working to get many Democrats elected over the years, I am ashamed to be a Democrat after watching all that has taken place over the last eight years. By the way Governor, you stated that your transition team was looking at the waste in state government — what happened? The transition team must have seen all the waste. What are you going to do about it? Where is the accountability?

Larry Talley

Smyrna

Revenue shortfall causes lawmakers to struggle over proposals

Delaware State News

DOVER — By this point, nearly all Delawareans have heard that the state is facing an unprecedented revenue shortfall for fiscal year 2010 and because of it, state lawmakers are looking at unprecedented solutions, such as a pay cut for state employees and a reauthorization of sports betting.

While these proposals have taken top priority, the state’s budget situation is also having an impact elsewhere — on the General Assembly’s ability to legislate.

And it was painfully obvious on Wednesday at Legislative Hall.

A total of 13 bills were tabled in committee meetings, meaning they will not go forward, many because they would cost the state money.

Many more likely will see the same fate.

Bills that would cost the state money are given fiscal notes by the Controller General’s office, and fiscal notes mean quick deaths for legislation this year.

"There is a lot of pending legislation," said Rep. Dennis P. Williams, D-Wilmington, "The only bills with fiscal notes that can be passed are those with ASFs, appropriated special funds.

"It’s very challenging. You feel handcuffed," Rep. Williams said. "But we’ll get through this. I hope."

One such bill to be tabled due to a fiscal note was House Bill 10, introduced by Rep. Teresa Schooley, D-Newark.

House Bill 10 would make the same-sex partner of a state employee or pensioner entitled to the same benefits that are provided to spouses of state employees and pensioners.

The bill is controversial, but that was not why Rep. Schooley asked for the bill to be sidelined on Wednesday.

"I am very interested in this issue, but it has a fiscal note," said Rep. Schooley. "And dealing with the budget issues, I didn’t feel like we could go forward with it."

Although the state’s budgetary problems have forced her to table the legislation for now, it does not mean she is not fully in support of the measure.

"If the state hits the lottery, I’ll bring the bill right back," Rep. Schooley said.

The same fate befell another bill of hers on Wednesday.

House Bill 22 would have extended Delaware’s Childrens’ Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to include reduced-cost health insurance coverage for children of families with personal incomes up to 300 percent of the Federal Poverty level. That proposal also was tabled at her request.

"We need to be good stewards of what money we have," said Rep. Schooley of her decision to pull the bill.

Rep. Deborah Hudson, R-Wilmington, found herself in the same position on Wednesday. She had House Bill 8 tabled because of a fiscal note.

House Bill 8 would subtract from Delaware taxable income any funds received from the armed forces by residents of Delaware who are serving on active duty.

The legislation, if passed, would reduce state revenue from personal income tax.

"It was not likely to (go) anywhere this year," said Rep. Hudson. "But it doesn’t mean it failed."

Sen. Brian J. Bushweller, D-Dover, said he had just signed on to co-sponsor legislation that would create a program within the Division of Public Health to focus on strokes and heart attacks.

"Strokes and heart attacks are the number-one killer of Delawareans," he said.

Although the legislation is something he strongly believes in, he said he does not believe as though it will move forward this year, because it has a fiscal note of $64,000.

"Even a fiscal note that small, this year, makes it very difficult to do the bill," he said. "I would love to see us start that program, and ultimately we will, but it probably will not be this year."

One bill that he believes should and will be passed despite a fiscal note is House Bill 1, known as the open government bill.

House Bill 1 was given a fiscal note of $60,000 by the Controller General’s office.

"Even in the face of the budget difficulties, I think this is the most important year of all for people to have access to what we are doing," said Sen. Bushweller. "I think they’ll understand better why we made certain decisions if they can see what we had to deal with."

First I would like to thank you for ignoring me as I took time out of my day on short notice and showed up at your meeting Monday night to have my question answered. I proceeded to sit there for an hour with my hand in the air two rows from you. This does not surprise me as I sent you a letter two weeks ago and a staffer of yours emailed me a form letter in response. I was assured that my questions were being considered but have not heard from anyone again. No surprise!

Here is the question I wanted to ask, if you actually care: How can you justify that no one making under $60,000 dollars should have a 1% raise in their personal income taxes but if you work for the state 8% is absolutely acceptable even if you make far less than that?

Now a little about myself, my wife of 13 years and I have always tried to do things right. I am the Athletic Director at a local High School. I work long hours and I have a Masters Degree. We have worked hard for everything we have. We purchased a modest ranch home trying to always live within our means. We don’t own fancy cars or take extravagant trips. We have no credit card debt and pay all our bills on time. We clip coupons for the grocery store and always look for ways to save money. We don’t ask the government for a thing! Actually, I contribute as a town council member. It is a position for which I receive nothing in return, nor would I ask.

Your proposed cuts in salary and benefits would amount to me losing what may not seem like a lot to someone in your shoes but it does to common people. This will alter our lives. I will need to take on another job. I have already started to apply for jobs because I am responsible for my own life. However, I already work 65 hours a week at my primary job. Is this something that sounds fair to you? How many more foreclosures do you think your plan will be responsible for? How many more people will choose to jettison their health benefits in the name of putting food on their tables? How effective at their jobs will the State of Delaware work force be when they are now working two jobs for 80 hrs a week to pay their bills? How is it truly "shared sacrifice" if only state workers contribute? I read in the paper that cabinet members and judicial officers will be exempt from this cut back.

I have a challenge for you. The besieged executives of our Big 3 Auto Makers chose to work for $1 this year. Whether you see it this way or not, you are also the CEO of a failing institution. You too should pledge to the people of Delaware to work for $1. No one should want to follow you until you do.

I really do hope to hear from you. My questions were not rhetorical but rather real concerns I have for everyone that stands to have their life altered by someone that seems out of touch with common people. Understand this, I am a tireless worker who is unafraid to spend every last bit of energy he has to campaign for anyone and everyone who opposes your plan and frankly who opposes you.

Barry Fillman

State employees feel singled out by pay cuts

Delaware State News

DOVER — State workers were up in arms Monday at a town-hall meeting in Dover with Gov. Jack A. Markell to discuss his budget proposal.

The focus of their frustration was Gov. Markell’s suggestion to cut the salary of state employees across the board by 8 percent.

And it was obvious from the first question.

"Why should state workers carry the burden for the whole state?" asked correctional officer Sgt. Roy Foraker, of Dover, to a round of applause. "Others in the state do not take a hit."

Gov. Markell said tough times call for everyone to make sacrifices and that no cuts were easy for him to propose.

"Personnel costs make up 46 percent of the budget," said Gov. Markell.

That argument did not sit well with some, though.

State workers make up only 3 percent of the state’s population, said Salina Magagnotti, of Dover.

They should not be asked to shoulder the state’s budget problem, she said.

And others had questions about the implementation of the governor’s suggested pay cuts.

Is this cut truly temporary, asked Lisa Enright, of Dover.

"Incredibly temporary," said Gov. Markell.

Even a temporary cut is painful, said Ms. Enright. She brought with her a sample paycheck for a teacher with a master’s degree and four years of experience to show what the cuts would actually mean, and gave a copy to the governor.

Ms. Enright’s teacher makes $1,310 biweekly now, but would see a drop of more than $200 each pay period, to $1,109 each check, if the 8-percent pay cut is approved.

Gov. Markell said it was not just state workers who were being touched by the state’s budgetary woes, that others also are affected by the budget cuts in different ways, either through tax increases or program cuts.

Many did not think that was enough; many believed there should be more in the way of taxes — especially a sales tax or a luxury tax.

Delaware’s lack of a sales tax gives the state a competitive advantage, said Gov. Markell. Instituting such a tax would discourage people from coming into the state to shop.

And he said he worried that a temporary sales tax would not be temporary.

How, then, could he promise that the pay cuts would be temporary, asked Ms. Magagnotti.

Despite the noticeably low morale in the Kent County Levy Court chamber where the meeting was held, many meeting attendees came with ideas and alternatives for the governor.

Some suggested including non-executive-level state employees on performance review committees, utilizing correctional inmates for contract work and trying furloughs instead of pay cuts.

Gov. Markell said furloughs would not work because too many state employees work at 24-hour facilities. If those employees took furlough days, they would need to take overtime in order to cover all of the shifts.

If furloughs did not include those employees, the rest of the state workers would need to take off too many days to still provide key services, he said.

Gov. Markell repeatedly told the crowd that he was not excited to make the proposal, but he did not have many other options.

He was able to avoid layoffs, he said.

"This is certainly the most painful part of the process," said Gov. Markell.

But some in the room did not believe the governor understood the pain.

Multiple questions were asked about the governor’s salary, which he would not answer specifically, and whether he would take the pay cut, as well.

He said he had already taken a 10-percent pay cut and planned on taking an additional 10-percent cut for fiscal year 2010.

According to the state budget, Gov. Markell made $171,000 when he was sworn into office. After the 10-percent cut, he would make $153,900.

Gov. Markell’s salary was already 29 percent higher than that of his predecessor, Ruth Ann Minner, who made $132,500 annually.

The Delaware Compensation Commission recommended in 2005 that the governor’s salary be increased to $171,000 beginning this year.

While the audience was heated — and most of that heat was directed at the governor — not all were upset with his proposal.

A few people thanked Gov. Markell for including all state employees in his proposal to cut salaries and another applauded him for not looking at introducing a sales tax.

Delaware State News

DOVER — Although House Resolution 16 passed convincingly by voice vote in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, it still caused some controversy and led to a heated debate on the floor.

The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Bryon H. Short, D-Wilmington, states that any reduction in compensation or benefits asked of state employees will be matched by all House members. Rep. Short said that while not legally binding, the resolution sends a clear message to state workers that state representatives will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them during the state’s budget troubles.

Both Reps. Joseph W. Booth, R-Georgetown, and Gregory F. Lavelle, R-Wilmington, said they had problems with the resolution.

Because the resolution is not binding, Rep. Booth said he felt it was "meaningless."

"It only starts some sort of smoke-and-mirrors show," he said.

Rep. Lavelle worried the legislation was unconstitutional, since the constitution states that lawmakers cannot set their own pay.

"We need to uphold the constitution," he said.

Rep. Short said he was surprised his resolution caused so much commotion.

"My intent was really to respond to my constituents," he said.

In regards to the constitutionality claim, he said the House of Representatives' lawyers had stated that since it was a nonbinding resolution, it was constitutional.

"It is just a statement that expresses an intent," Rep. Short said

"I have heard from residents who wonder if we as legislators are going to take the same cuts that state workers might have to endure or if we’re going to leave ourselves out," Rep. Short said. "This resolution is in response to our constituents and hopefully give them a comfort level that we’re going to do the right thing.

"Of course, we want to mitigate any impact to state workers and will do everything we can to minimize the proposed temporary salary cuts."

On March 19, Gov. Jack A. Markell unveiled a plan to close the $750 million revenue shortfall for fiscal 2010, which includes a proposal to temporarily cut state workers’ salaries by 8 percent.

"This resolution is a statement of intent to tell state workers that whatever we might have to do to them, we will do to ourselves," said House Majority Leader Rep. Peter C. Schwartzkopf, D-Rehoboth Beach. "This is not an endorsement of any plan or proposal."

As it was introduced on Wednesday, the resolution was sponsored by Rep. Short and had 39 additional co-sponsors. Rep. Lavelle was not listed as a sponsor.

Rep. Booth said he was mistakenly included as a sponsor.

Although he said he agreed with the intent of the resolution, he did not believe it should have been put before the House as a resolution.

"We need to follow due course," Rep. Booth said. "It is an individual decision. We worry too much about ourselves and not enough about how the state should be run."

He said he would be getting a form to have his name taken off of the resolution.