| SB 4 w/ SA 1, SA 2, SA 3 | Passed | Sturgeon | This Act establishes an independent and nonpartisan Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the position of the Inspector General. Under this Act, the OIG would be unique in state government as a non-political agency with a sole mission to investigate and prevent fraud, waste, mismanagement, corruption, and other abuse of governmental resources. The OIG will protect the health and safety of Delaware residents, assist in the recovery of misspent or inappropriately paid funds, and strengthen government integrity and the public trust in government operations by doing all of the following:
1. Investigating the management and operation of state agencies to determine if there has been waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, corruption, or other abuse of governmental resources that is harmful to the public interest, including the General Assembly’s management of governmental resources and routine administrative operations, such as requirements related to employment practices and procurement. The OIG authority in regard to the General Assembly is limited under the Delaware Constitution and thus cannot include the General Assembly’s legislative functions or disciplinary authority which are governed by the Delaware Constitution and the rules of proceedings adopted under § 9 of Article II of the Delaware Constitution.
2. Coordinating with other investigative and law-enforcement agencies, including the Attorney General and the Auditor of Accounts (Auditor).
3. Recommending corrective actions and statutory revisions, and, if necessary, make referrals to other law-enforcement agencies.
4. Providing reports to the Governor, Attorney General, and General Assembly, and these reports will be available to the public on the OIG website.
The Inspector General will not duplicate the work of the Auditor, Attorney General, Public Integrity Commission, or other investigative or law-enforcement agencies and will work collaboratively, including through memoranda of understanding, with these agencies for the purposes of efficiency and coordination. Specifically, the Inspector General can be distinguished from these agencies as follows:
• Under the generally accepted government auditing standards in the Yellow Book produced by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, both financial and performance audits are only designed to detect fraud, illegal activity, noncompliance, abuse, and waste. An auditor determines whether the subject matter meets criteria, reaches reasonable assurance, and follows directive standards. If an auditor detects fraud or other bad behavior, they must report it to an investigation agency.
• The OIG will be an entirely independent investigation agency, charged with gathering evidence to identify the individual responsible for the bad behavior identified through an audit and prove that it occurred. For complaints the received from other sources, the OIG will investigate to determine if there is or has been bad behavior. In addition to proving instances of bad behavior, these investigations may also prove that an allegation is false or incorrect.
• The OIG will not duplicate the work of existing ombudsperson offices because the OIG is primarily concerned with detecting and preventing fraud, waste, mismanagement, corruption, and abuse of governmental resources while ombuds programs are concerned with violations of the rights and treatment of specific populations.
• If the OIG believes, based on an investigation, that there has been or continues to be significant problem regarding fraud, waste, mismanagement, corruption, or evidence of a crime, the Inspector General must report the finding to the Department of Justice (DOJ). If the DOJ does not take action on a referral, the OIG may pursue a civil action on behalf of the State.
• The OIG will be unique in State government because the Inspector General is not elected and will be an entirely independent agency. The Inspector General will be selected through a process that requires a Selection Panel to provide 3 names to the Governor for consideration. The Governor will select a nominee from these 3 names for appointment as Inspector General and submit the nominee to the Senate for confirmation. Once confirmed, the Inspector General serves a term of 5 years. In addition, the DOJ is not responsible for providing legal advice, counsel, services, and representation to the OIG.
In other states, the financial impact of investigations by the Office of Inspector General has exceeded the annual budget for that office by millions of dollars. Some examples of conduct that have been identified in states where an Inspector General has responsibilities similar to those under this Act include the following:
• In Georgia, an agency administrator who faked multiple pregnancies, receiving 265 hours of leave for which she was not otherwise eligible to receive.
• Massachusetts has recovered more than $245,000 from 13 former troopers within the State Police for overtime pay they received for hours they did not actually work.
• In Indiana, a Department of Child Services worker was found to have falsified case notes regarding child welfare assessments.
• In Louisiana, state agencies were found to have wasted more than $500,000 in non-refundable airline tickets that were allowed to expire and lose value.
Under this Act, the selection process for the Inspector General begins within 60 days of enactment.
This Act also makes corresponding clarifications to existing law and technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual. | AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 29 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL. |
| HB 29 w/ HA 1 + SA 1, SA 2 | Passed | Shupe | Each year, the Department of Education (Department) publishes data regarding all Delaware public schools, currently known as School Performance Data Reports (reports). These reports are available on the Department’s website as the Delaware Report Card.
This Act revises current law to correspond with and codify current Department practices regarding these reports as follows:
• Changes the term “Education Profile” to “education-related data” to reflect the broad range of data that the Department publishes, in addition to the annual reports required under existing State and federal law.
• Requires that there is a link to these reports on the school choice website.
• Requires that these reports continue to include proficiency rates.
In addition, this Act requires that the Department do all of the following:
• Provide a link to these reports on the home page of the Department’s website.
• Include a list of a career pathways offered at a high school in these reports.
This Act also makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual which includes revisions to clarify repetitive, confusing, or contradictory language. | AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 14 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO DELAWARE PUBLIC EDUCATION PROFILES. |
| SB 11 | Approved | Townsend | This Act is the second leg of a constitutional amendment to modernize the bail provisions within the Delaware Constitution and clarify the power of the General Assembly to enumerate certain felony offenses for which, or circumstances under which, pretrial release on bail may not be allowed. The first leg of this constitutional amendment was Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 11 of the 152nd General Assembly, published in Chapter 283 of Volume 84 of the Laws of Delaware. On passage of this second leg by this General Assembly this amendment will become part of the Delaware Constitution.
The current constitutional provision providing that only “capital offenses” are potentially not bailable first appeared in its present form in the Delaware Constitution of 1792. At that time, “capital offenses” included many more offenses than the term does today. For example, manslaughter, rape, robbery, burglary, and assaults with weapons were capital offenses, and therefore included as crimes for which a court could order pretrial detention. Thus, over time, certain crimes that the Framers included as potentially not bailable are currently bailable.
Presently, a Delaware state court judge cannot order preventive detention in any non-capital case. Instead, the judge can only attempt to set the bail so high that a defendant cannot make it, which means that any defendant, no matter how dangerous and no matter the circumstance, can obtain release if the defendant can fund the bail—even if that defendant poses a certain flight risk or a known threat of harm to the public or to a specific person, such as a witness or victim.
This Act is one step toward completing a pretrial release-detention continuum requiring specific evidence-based detention decisions that seek to maximize public safety while minimizing pretrial detention for those for whom detention is not required.
Specifically, this Act will do all of the following:
(1) Retain the express declaration of a general right to have bail set in a criminal case.
(2) Provide that the crimes for which bail may be withheld are capital murder, where the evidentiary proof is positive or presumption of the accusation great, and other specifically identified felony offenses determined by and under procedures prescribed by law where the evidentiary proof is positive or presumption of the accusation great.
(3) Ensure that an additional condition precedent to bail being withheld in non-capital cases is a finding by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the person’s appearance at court proceedings, reasonably assure the protection of the community, victims, witnesses, or any other person, and reasonably maintain the integrity of the judicial process, such that the defendant will not obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice.
With the adoption of this Act, Delaware can progress toward the type of modern bail system that has been increasingly adopted by our sister states through amendment of their state constitutions, when needed, and the development of statutory procedures that provide, in appropriate cases, pre-trial detention without bail. And this Act does so by adopting the standards recommended by authoritative sources including the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Uniform Law Commission, the National Center for State Courts, the American Bar Association, and the numerous state legislatures and court systems that have studied pretrial detention and retained or incorporated them in their own state constitutions and laws.
This Act, by itself, would not allow that a person charged with a non-capital crime could be held without bail. Rather, no person could be subject to a preventive detention hearing in a non-capital case until the General Assembly revises Chapter 21 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code to prescribe by law the specific felony offenses, circumstances, and procedures under which detention without bail may occur. The General Assembly has made the necessary revisions to Chapter 21 of Title 11 through the adoption of Senate Bill No. 12 of the 152nd General Assembly, published as Chapter 473 of Volume 84 of the Laws of Delaware, which was enacted on September 30, 2024, and will take effect 6 months after the enactment of this Act.
This Act requires a greater than majority vote for passage because § 1 of Article XVI of the Delaware Constitution requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly when the General Assembly amends the Delaware Constitution. | AN ACT CONCURRING IN A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I OF THE DELAWARE CONSTITUTION RELATING TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURES. |
| SCR 18 | Passed | Richardson | This resolution establishes the Delaware Nuclear Energy Feasibility Task Force to examine the feasibility, economic impact, regulatory considerations, energy reliability, and environmental implications of deploying Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in Delaware. | CREATING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY NUCLEAR ENERGY IN DELAWARE. |
| SJR 3 w/ SA 2 | Passed | Hansen | Energy Storage Systems provide benefits to the electric grid, including grid stabilization, managing peak energy demand, and providing backup power during outages. Energy Storage Systems can provide substantial cost savings to residential, commercial, and industrial electricity customers. The construction of Energy Storage Systems will promote economic growth and job creation in Delaware. This resolution directs the Delaware Sustainable Energy Utility (DESEU) to initiate and undertake a study to assess and analyze the costs and benefits of the adoption of Energy Storage Systems, both in front of and behind the meter, by all electric public utilities in Delaware. The resolution also directs the DESEU to conduct a pilot program and provide guidance and a level of funding, to be determined by the DESEU, to support Delmarva Power & Light Company, the Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation, the Delaware Electric Cooperative, and one independent power producer to deploy at least one battery storage pilot project in Delaware to serve their Delaware service territory. The DESEU is to submit a comprehensive report detailing the findings from the battery storage pilot program and the cost-benefit study and analysis of Energy Storage Systems in Delaware on or before June 1, 2026. | DIRECTING ALL ELECTRIC PUBLIC UTILITIES IN DELAWARE TO PARTICIPATE IN A STUDY TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE DELAWARE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UTILITY TO ASSESS AND ANALYZE THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE ADOPTION OF ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS IN DELAWARE, AND DIRECTING THE DELAWARE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UTILITY TO CONDUCT A PILOT PROGRAM WITH THE PARTICIPATION AND COOPERATION OF CERTAIN ELECTRIC UTILITIES TO DEVELOP AND DEPLOY PILOT PROJECTS INVOLVING BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS IN DELAWARE. |
| SS 2 for SB 115 | Passed | Lockman | This Act provides a pathway for former defendants in eviction actions to have the eviction filings against them shielded from public view. Being the subject of an eviction filing can prevent an individual from securing housing for years after any judgment in the case has been satisfied. Even tenants who prevailed in eviction actions may be denied housing by landlords who turn away any applicant with a prior eviction filing, regardless of the outcome of the case. The well-known health, social, and economic consequences of eviction can thus linger for years after an eviction filing, and trap individuals – including many children and families – in a cycle of poverty and housing instability. The effects are particularly acute among already marginalized groups, such as Black and female renters. By shielding eviction records when an individual has met certain requirements, this Act will help break down barriers to stable housing and economic security.
Under this Act, the Court must grant shielding upon a motion by the defendant if the Court finds any of the following to be true:
1. The judgment against the defendant was a judgment on the merits, a default judgment, or a stipulated judgment, 5 or more years have passed since the judgment was entered, the defendant has satisfied any monetary award included in the judgment, and the defendant has had no other similar judgments within 5 years of the defendant’s motion to shield.
2. The parties resolved the action through a stipulated agreement, and the defendant has complied with the terms of the stipulated agreement.
3. The plaintiff withdrew the complaint.
4. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.
5. The final judgment was in favor of the defendant.
6. The plaintiff and the defendant have agreed to the shielding.
7. The shielding of the records is clearly in the interests of justice.
The Court may not charge a filing fee for a motion to shield. Once the Court has granted the shielding, the Court has 45 days to effectuate it. An individual whose eviction record has been shielded can answer questions about prior evictions as if the shielded action was never filed.
This Act is a second Substitute for Senate Bill No. 115. Like Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 115, Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 115 does the following:
1. Adds judgement by stipulation to the list of judgments for which shielding is available after 5 years if the defendant has satisfied any monetary award included in the judgment.
2. Creates exceptions that make the shielded records available to the Department of Justice and the defendant in the action.
3. Allows for records of shielded actions to be available to the public for purposes of preserving case law, provided that all identifying information is redacted or otherwise obscured.
4. Makes minor technical changes.
The primary differences between Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 115 and Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 115 are as follows:
1. Senate Substitute No. 2 replaces the term “expungement” with the term “shielding” to better reflect how the Court will be handling records.
2. Senate Substitute No. 2 eliminates the provision in Senate Substitute No. 1 that would have allowed certain eviction records to be automatically shielded.
3. Senate Substitute No. 2 adds a requirement that a defendant seeking shielding under paragraph (a)(1) of § 5720 (lines 6 through 9) have no other similar judgments against them within 5 years of the motion to shield.
Senate Substitute No 2. also adds language specifying that redacted records are being made available for purposes of preserving important case law, and that the Court is responsible only for databases and systems that it controls. | AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 25 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO SUMMARY POSSESSION. |
