Powering Delaware’s Future: Why Modular Nuclear Is the Smart Choice

By: Jane Brady, Chair, A Better Delaware 

Delaware stands at a crossroad – a crossroad where opportunity awaits – with the right choices.

Energy in Delaware remains expensive. There are many suggestions about why, but shutting down generators before replacing the power they provide, speculation on alternative sources that can’t prove the value of their products, changing the definition of terms to allow pet projects to go forward, and failing to properly perceive the detriments and benefits of new technology all contribute to Delaware’s standing as the state with the 11^th highest cost of electricity in the nation.

Delaware does have choices and opportunities. First, maintain the status quo until we find alternatives we can actually live with. Once Delaware provided about 60% of its electric power needs within the state. Today, because of decisions by our General Assembly, to close operating plants without replacing their capacity and change the relationship between generators of power and the companies we pay to provide that power, Delaware now imports more than 60% of our electricity from out of state. And we overpay for what we get, because about 10% of the electricity we buy is lost during the transmission to our state. Imagine! Your electric bills could be 10% lower with one small change.

Second, look for efficient and cost-effective alternatives to the sources of energy you wish to forego (in this instance, our General Assembly has determined to forego oil and gas). The General Assembly favors wind and solar as alternatives.  The harsh reality is that the cost of energy generated by wind is extremely expensive, seasonably unreliable and has massive negative impacts on the environment, especially if it is located offshore.  Solar suffers the same lack of reliability.  And solar’s impact on farming, when located adjacent, has not been fully understood. That is important in a state where agriculture is still the number one product, and corn and soybeans fields are everywhere (at least in the downstate and lower New Castle County areas).

There is an alternative we should explore. Nuclear. If the preference of business is any indicator, this is the way to go.  Bill Gates just invested in getting the second tower at Three Mile Island opened, and Google has proposed building 20 modular nuclear power plants. Both efforts are to support the tremendous demand for AI and data management will place on our energy supplies. And, just for comparison, by some estimates, China is outbuilding us in nuclear more than 20-1.

Nuclear was first pursued as a clean way to generate electricity in the 1970s.  But there were drawbacks. The nuclear power plants of old were perceived as dangerous, adversely affecting the waterways into which heated water was pumped, and left piles of “nuclear waste” at their sites.  People chained themselves to the gates of the plants to prevent them from opening. Several incidents of systems failure led to concerns about radiation exposure and death.

Today’s alternatives could not be more different. Modular plants, much smaller and designed very differently from the first-generation plants, are coming online in places around the world. They are safer. While the evacuation area around one of the old plants was ten or more miles, the evacuation area for a modular plant is, literally, the perimeter of the property.  Their cooling process is contained, so there is no discharge into tributaries or the ocean.  They use the “spent” fuel cells from the older plants (the “nuclear waste” referenced above) which actually are only about 5% depleted, leaving a great deal of energy remaining. It is estimated that there is enough energy in those used fuel cells to provide electricity to the entire country for 100 years.

What is Delaware’s opportunity? Well, the General Assembly is currently looking at what role Delaware could play in bringing nuclear energy to this State and the region. We at A Better Delaware encourage Senator Hanson, and the other members of the committee examining this issue to be brave, to be bold and to take Delaware to a leadership position on this issue.  While we disagreed (and continue to) with the decision to shut down the Indian River Power Plant, it is a perfect location to bring a modular nuclear plant to Delaware. We should pursue a plan that allows Delaware to contribute to the reduction of unused and potentially dangerous “nuclear waste” and to be at the forefront of providing energy to the region. Delaware would be an exporter of energy and become independent of out of state sources of electricity.  Closer to home generation means lower costs. And we can feel good about accomplishing the goal of inexpensive, clean energy.

Further, this course would answer another issue currently facing the General Assembly – what position to take on data centers. Right now, there is opposition to allowing data centers to locate in Delaware, in part based on the energy demands such businesses might make. Should we become a leader in bringing nuclear energy generation of electricity to the region, businesses requiring vast amounts of power could locate here, bringing good paying jobs and a robust tax base.

Modular nuclear meets all the General Assembly’s goals and more.  Delaware should stand up, apart from our neighbors, and be a leader.  All Delawareans will benefit from the foresight of the General Assembly to act now and make the right choice – choose opportunity.

Jane Brady serves as Chair of A Better Delaware. She previously served as Attorney General of Delaware and as a Judge of the Delaware Superior Court.

Delaware Needs Dynamic Leadership for a Dynamic Economy

By: Jane Brady, Chair, A Better Delaware

Well, it is a New Year, and time to consider what A Better Delaware believes the priorities should be for the next legislative session.  As they say, “Let’s get down to business.”

For too long, Delaware has been complacent and passive in how it has generated the resources that support our government. Much of our revenue comes from a source which our government tends to take for granted – corporate taxes and fees.

Delaware has historically benefitted from the purposeful investments in the clarity of our corporate law and the consistency and certainty of our business court, the Court of Chancery.  But that reliance has created a stagnation in our business and workforce development strategies that could prove to be disastrous to Delaware’s economy, even in the short term.

Long gone are the days when our legislators, and perhaps, now, even judges, knew and appreciated why and how our laws were developed to create a nationally unique business and legal culture. Laws and decisions that jeopardize our leadership in business formation and the selection of where to litigate disputes are beginning to erode our supremacy in the business and legal landscape.  Business formations are down by about 10% since 2021.  High profile cases and business entities have taken the headlines and encouraged competition, particularly in Nevada and Texas.

Delaware needs to take a dynamic approach to our economy that generates new, and grows existing, businesses that employ skilled workers in high paying jobs.

Where do we start? With education. We cannot continue to graduate 87% of the students who attend our high schools and yet show a performance at 40% or below in basic Math and English skills. Students deserve a more realistic assessment of their skills as they set expectations for their future and the business community needs to be able to rely on the fact that the workers they hire are competent and prepared to enter the workforce. More money is not the answer. For over 10 years, as we consistently spent more, performance has gone down. Offer parents a choice in selecting their child’s school. A child’s zip code should not determine the quality of their education.

We need to have policies that will allow for the generation, development and expansion of business. We should eliminate the regulatory stranglehold that we currently have on the business community.  We need to reduce and eliminate certain taxes on businesses that take away from their ability to expand, hire new employees, buy new equipment and advance their technology. The gross receipts tax, which has been eliminated in many other states, should be repealed and we should eliminate fees that take, with unrelenting certainty, the incentive to expand or open new businesses away from the small business community.

We should allow the development of the former industrial sites in the coastal zone. Those sites are prime for enticing pharmaceutical research and development plants, which can take advantage of our mid-east coast location and easy shipping options.

State agencies have put a stranglehold on good companies willing to make an investment in Delaware. Several efforts have been thwarted by regulatory delay and excessive and unnecessary demands by that agency. The perspective of the agencies should be to encourage or promote development of businesses, in a way that is fair to the environment and our business and economic stability.

Our government needs to be more transparent and accountable. Recent requirements that employees execute non-disclosure agreements show how far removed our legislators’ perspective is from their obligation to let the public know what they are doing and how they are spending our money.  Expanded Freedom of Information laws, the establishment of an Inspector General and a state ethics code for legislators with enforcement assurances should be adopted.

Finally, we need to bring common sense to the portion of the state budget that is spent on health care.  Expanding government intervention into private and nonprofit businesses is not going to help them work better. Our state government has shown no understanding of real-life economic forces when it comes to generating and spending money.  The legislature simply creates new resources (read, taxes and fees) to continue to expand the budget. Those private nonprofit businesses, however, have an obligation that goes directly to the people they serve, and those who are employed by them. We need to eliminate the provisions in HB 350, which put government appointees in charge of hospital budgets. We need to eliminate the certificate of need, which conclusively has been shown to reduce access to, and increase the cost of, healthcare.  And the state needs to be more fair in how and when it imposes assessments on its employees and retirees in response to increases in health care costs.   Rather than pass on, incrementally, the increases in costs that the state has sustained in health care, politicians neglected to do so for years, and now the increase is so substantial that everyone is up in arms about the hike. We also need to assess what we are covering and evaluate the amount of co-pay fees for various procedures for state insured patients.

There are many other issues we could add to this list, but these are our top priorities. Delaware used to be, and can be, a dynamic business generator, with scores of solvent businesses that offer high paying and skilled job opportunities.  But the end result has to start with policies established by committed leaders who understand the role that they can play in creating the environment in which our citizens, businesses and state can thrive.

Our wish for the New Year is that Delaware’s business, legal and political leaders step up to the challenge.

Jane Brady serves as Chair of A Better Delaware. She previously served as Attorney General of Delaware and as a Judge of the Delaware Superior Court.

Delaware’s Certificate of Public Review: A Prescription for Higher Healthcare Costs

By: Jane Brady, Chair, A Better Delaware

A new legislative session is about to begin, and as we look at the proposals, we have made over the last several years, one that stands out in today’s marketplace for health care and costs is eliminating the Certificate of Need, amended later to be called the Certificate of Public Review in Delaware.  Perhaps the new name Delaware has adopted is more appropriate, as there was never any real correlation between the certificate and the need for affordable and accessible health care. The requirements in the law adversely affect access to, and the cost and quality of, the patient care you receive.

What do these laws do? Known, generally, as a Certificate of Need in the few states that retain them, these laws require healthcare providers to get permission from the state before adding or expanding the type of services they offer or before acquiring expensive equipment, building new facilities, or expanding existing ones.

How did we decide to adopt such a law?  Upon passage of an Act of Congress, certificate of need laws were passed by 49 of the 50 states in the early 1980s. But, in an unusual move (as Congress rarely ever undoes what it did do), Congress repealed the law just a few years later, in 1986.  Why?  It quickly became clear the objectives were not being met. In fact, over the intervening years, study after study has shown that these laws are impeding access and increasing costs. The Kaiser Family Foundation did a study that found that states that have certificate of need requirements had 11% higher healthcare costs than states that did not have it. An additional study by George Mason University found that there were 30% fewer hospitals per 100,000 residents in states that had a certificate of need requirement. Additionally, rural areas, with smaller, localized populations, were more poorly served.

Many states now have repealed the certificate of need statutes. Sadly, despite repeated statements of concern about health care costs in the state, Delaware has yet to take action to eliminate the certificate of need requirements.

And, despite the title Delaware decided to adopt for the law, it is not the public who reviews the request. It The panel includes competitors of the applicant, who, in the real world, have no interest in allowing another facility to provide greater services or purchase equipment to offer procedures they don’t offer.

Certificate of need laws are structurally flawed. They limit competition. They allow the state to pick “winners” and “losers,” with the existing facilities having the political connections and favor to “win.” The certificate of need restricts who can participate in competing for your healthcare choices and as a result, there is no incentive to be innovative or even cost-conscious when they appeal to you as you make your health care choices. When businesses compete for you to choose their services, they will try and find the most cost-effective way to give you a product that you want, when you want it. Without competition, there is no need to be responsive to your demand for a specific service or to be more cost-effective. You get what they have decided to provide at the price they decide to charge.

Importantly, access includes timeliness. Recently, CMS, the company that manages Medicare and Medicaid nationally, conducted a study of emergency room wait times in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Delaware ranked 47 out of 51, with an average wait time for emergency room services of over three hours. A recent study. In 2024, found an average wait time of 3.5 hours.

It is good governance to eliminate certificate of need laws. Since the laws were passed, the government has taken a much larger role in providing health care. Now, Medicare and Medicaid have changed the economic environment in which healthcare is provided, and costs are highly regulated. In truth, Certificate of Need laws are now essentially outdated for any purpose. Delaware should repeal the laws providing for a Certificate of Public Review, our equivalent of a Certificate of Need, and allow the health care providers of our state compete fairly to provide the public, timely, the quality health care they need and want.

Jane Brady serves as Chair of A Better Delaware. She previously served as Attorney General of Delaware and as a Judge of the Delaware Superior Court.

Building Strong Readers in Delaware: Applying the Science of Reading

By: Dr. Tanya Hettler, PhD, Center for Education Policy

Recent Changes in Delaware Employment Law

From: Delaware State Chamber Business May/June 2024 Issue

BY G. KEVIN FASIC, ESQ. AND ANTHONY N. DELCOLLO, ESQ.

IN RECENT YEARS, the Delaware General Assembly has introduced and passed legislation aimed at strengthening employee rights. While these efforts are positive for employees, some aspects create unintended consequences for small and mid-sized businesses. Increased regulatory complexity could make day-to-day operations more burdensome, potentially discouraging new business formation and impacting the growth of existing companies. These changes might make hiring decisions more challenging for employers, impacting overall workforce levels in the State. Some specific examples include:

SB 145 (signed): This new law clarifies and establishes caps on damages allowed in claims of employment discrimination. The caps exceed what is allowed under federal law. The likely result is that claimants will elect state courts to pursue these claims.

SS1 for SB 102 (signed): Contrary to decades of precedent, and federal law, this new law mandates prevailing wage rates on public works construction projects be paid to workers who fabricate custom components, regardless of where such work is performed. However, how this will be enforced when the work is performed out-of-state, by workers who never set foot in Delaware?

SB 27 (signed): This new law increases the statute of limitations for wage and other employment claims from one year to two years, changing decades of precedent.

HB 205 w/ HA3 (signed): This new law creates a state-sponsored retirement plan for employees that is to be “facilitated” by employers.

SS2 for SB1 (signed): This law, signed in 2022, creates an entirely new paid family and medical leave program that applies to employers with ten or more employees. Many employers are still unaware of this new law and its requirements. In addition to new tax burdens, this law provides for stiff penalties for noncompliance.

SB 35 (signed): This new law creates the crime of “wage theft” and subjects all Delaware employers (including owners and officers, individually) to criminal liability for various “wage violations.” For instance, improperly classifying an employee as an independent contractor is a violation.

SB 233 (pending): This Bill would establish employment protections, including mandatory employment by successor employers, for workers in the service sector.

HB 17 (pending): This Bill would mandate an hour of earned sick or safety time for every thirty hours worked by an employee, potentially conflicting with SS2 for SB 1, above.

SB 229 (pending): This Bill would allow former employees access to their former employer’s personnel file (including medical records) and expands what must be in the file.

HB 258 (pending): Overturning decades of precedent, this Bill would require domestic workers (including babysitters, housekeepers, nannies, and others) to be paid at least minimum wage.

The new laws and pending bills listed above are a sample of the efforts to protect employees from their employers. Whether they are necessary is a different question. What is clear is that employers, regardless of industry or size, have increasing regulatory obligations. Stay tuned for how these play out once enforcement begins.

G. Kevin Fasic, Esq. is managing principal of Offit Kurman’s Wilmington office and Anthony N. Delcollo, Esq. is a principal of Offit Kurman’s labor and employment practice group.

Beware of Government’s Grab For Even More Control of Your Healthcare

By: Ben DuPont

History provides ample evidence that governments are not very proficient at managing processes and delivering services. This is not a criticism of hard-working people in government, but their efforts are often thwarted by an overwhelming tendency toward inefficiency.

A good illustration of the pitfalls of government overreach is legislation primed to be passed within the next couple days by the General Assembly. The bill’s rather innocuous title, “An Act to Amend Title 16 Of the Delaware Code Relating To Hospital Costs,” belies the extent of its sweeping power grab over how large portions of healthcare are delivered in the First State.

More bureaucracy and more cost to taxpayers. The bill establishes the new “Diamond State Hospital Cost Review Board.” It would seem that the last thing healthcare in the state and across the nation needs is yet more bureaucracy. Proponents can argue that the board is comprised of just eight members, but we know that bureaucracies always grow (the board grew just during the drafting process).  Hospitals will be required to provide reams of data to the board based solely on the whims of its members as there is no constraint on such requests apparent in the bill’s language. Who is going to review that mass of data? Certainly, it will require new analysts and data processors. The taxpayers will have to ante up for these new folks and hospitals will have to spend time and money preparing and supporting the information. Governments are good at creating and growing bureaucracies and mandates but not so good at evaluating and sunsetting them.

Shifting decisions to those the state deems as “experts.” As it stands now, all but one of the board’s members will be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate.  They will wield incredible power over hospitals that will be required to submit their budgets to the board for its review and approval. The board may, in its sole discretion, deem it necessary to, “engage with the hospital in revising” its budget. Imagine being the hospital management discussing possible revisions offered by the very board that can approve – or not – your institution’s budget. Hospitals that fail to meet the budget as approved by the board face underdefined penalties under the bill.  Perhaps the most deleterious (but not really surprising) provision is that hospitals that actually outperform their budget may see the financial benefit of such confiscated, at the board’s discretion, to the state. Why would we want to take decisions about the optimal way to provide effective care in a hospital away from those who know the hospital, the patient population, the medical and other staff, and instead give those decisions to a board whose members simply cannot know such details.

Greater pressure to go along to get along. Think of the breeding ground for conflicts of interest, cronyism, and even corruption this presents. Large bureaucracies staffed by” experts” and their staff with overbearing power create huge incentives of questionable practices. How can the board’s members, if they are versed in healthcare, not have relationships and favorites across Delaware? It turns into making sure the hospital has the right friends in the General Assembly, the board or its staff, accomplished by political contributions and other means of ingratiating the hospital with the board.

Delaware should learn from the Farmers Bank debacle from half a century ago. Here was a bank 80% owned by the state, with one-third of its board members appointed by the General Assembly, a shocking lack of accountability, and the potential for conflict of interest (does any of this sound familiar?). Even the New York Times, no enemy of government meddling in the economy, reported on the resulting fiasco, with evidence of malfeasance, the not-surprising conflicts of interest, acts of cronyism, and the resulting bad loans. The Times noted how the state ended up paying dearly, $20 million a year, for this failed attempt at government meddling. It was the just one example of what one knowledgeable Delawarean refers to as the “soft corruption of political control”

But do we ever really learn? I’m reminded of something my father wrote over a decade ago, “Markets work . . . and decisions made for the many by an elite few do not.” I would rather have a committee of doctors overseeing the Delaware General Assembly expenditures than a committee of politicians overseeing our hospitals.

Government Running Business Is a Bad Idea

By: Jane Brady, Chair, A Better Delaware

Delaware’s Government clearly does not run like a business. It never has. But some in our state’s government think they can run a business better than the business can.

HB 350, a bill pending in the Delaware General Assembly would give a review board, comprised of five members appointed by politicians, the authority for “review and approval of annual hospital budgets” according to the synopsis of the bill. In the interim, before the review board is appointed and ready to undertake responsibilities, the bill limits what the hospital can charge for services.

There are a number of problems with the concept. First, the sponsors assume that the cost of health care is governed by hospital costs. There are many factors other than the cost of hospital services that affect the cost of health care, including the costs of prescription drugs, shortages of doctors and nurses and lack of competition.

The sponsors also ignore several less intrusive ways to manage the issue and to better address their concerns.

This bill is not about the quality-of-care patients are receiving and does not expand access to that care. It is prompted by the high cost of health care for state employees and retirees. There has not been an increase in premiums for state health care recipients in about seven years. Regularly adjusting the premiums to costs makes sense in every other employer’s office. Our government should try it.

Studies have consistently shown that eliminating the Certificate of Need Laws would lower costs and improve access. Delaware is one of only a few states that still retain this harmful law. We should repeal it.

Delaware hospitals should comply with federal requirements and adopt practices that make the cost of procedures more transparent so patients can make informed decisions regarding where to seek treatment. Resistance to competition could result in a state takeover of health care, as this bill demonstrates.

Our hospitals are non-profit entities and are required to file reports with the state each year identifying what money they raise, how they spend it, how much of it they retain and for what purpose. Government officials can easily review those to be sure the hospital is performing the public services it promises. If they are showing a profit, or do not have designated, service-related purposes for reserves, then action can be taken.

But the way this bill would work is to substitute the judgment of political appointees over that of the experts and administrators of these facilities. Indeed, the primary sponsor of this bill said that she believes “hospitals should invest in doctors, nurses, medical equipment and the health of our citizens.” If they don’t do so in a way that meets her, and others’ approval, the politicians will decide how the money is spent. And there is no contention that will improve quality of care or access to care. Indeed, several professionals testified in the legislative hearings expressed concern that the bill would “create an environment where programs serving people with special needs, such as those with Down syndrome or cerebral palsy, would be sacrificed due to cost.”

This is socialized medicine by any other name. But this is not the first time that the government has intruded into the business of business. The federal government decided you should not be able to buy incandescent lightbulbs anymore, and they are gone. More recently, Delaware’s government has told car dealers what kinds of cars they must sell. There is no justification in the financial return or consumer demand for these state-imposed requirements. Not surprisingly, it is not going well. Manufacturers are cutting back on the number of electric vehicles they are making because the demand is simply not there.

These decisions made by our government to intrude into the corporate board room are not based on public safety concerns or citizen welfare. They are based on preferences or the costs for government. This is a dangerous precedent. We have a robust corporate community in Delaware because we have carefully crafted our laws and practices to make it desirable to incorporate here.

The State is intruding into the hospitals’ business because the State thinks it has to pay too much. What is to prevent the government from deciding to tell contractors (construction, IT, etc.) what they can charge and review their budgets to be sure the state is getting a good price, and the owners aren’t keeping too much of the profits for themselves?

There is a legal concept called the “business judgement rule.”  In essence, it allows a business to act in its best judgment. Those making the decisions are, generally, well trained and experienced in the business practices and nuances of their industry. Government has never had to meet a bottom line. It can simply raise taxes or spend in deficit. Businesses should not be run by individuals who are uninformed and lack the expertise to exercise good judgment in the business world. We are jeopardizing our standing as a place to do business if we enact this bill.

And, while we are discussing budget scrutiny, perhaps we should put together a committee to review the Governor’s budget and examine how the state of Delaware spent nearly $4 billion in surplus dollars (surplus means more than we needed to meet our budget) over the last three years. I expect there would be resistance.

HB 350 is a bad idea for all Delawareans. It puts our government in charge of private matters, creates a precedent that jeopardizes our economy, and continues a bad trend to inject priorities other than the success of a business into decision making.

Jane Bady serves as Chair of A Better Delaware. She previously served as Attorney General of Delaware and as a Judge of the Delaware Superior Court.

John Marinucci to join Advisory Board

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 31, 2023

WILMINGTON, Del. – A Better Delaware (ABD) announced today that Dr. John Marinucci, former executive director of the Delaware School Board Association (DSBA) will join the advisory board.

John worked for the State of Delaware in the field of auditing, accounting and finance.  John later became the Chief of Administration for the Division of Highway Operations. John transitioned to the K-12 education field in the year 2000, as the Director of Operations for the Milford School District. John would later assume the responsibility for state-wide educational facilities planning and construction at the Department of Education (DOE) in 2006.  John served as the Director of Finance for the DOE on an interim basis for approximately 18 months.

In 2011, John left to serve as the Director of Administrative Services for the Woodbridge School District, with his primary role being to direct and manage the construction of Woodbridge’s new $53 million high school, which was completed on time and on budget.  John assumed the duties of Executive Director of the Delaware School Boards Association in February 2016 after retirement from 31 years of State of Delaware service in July 2015.  John retired from the Delaware School Boards Association (DSBA) in July 2023 after having rebuilt the organization’s finances and reputation.  The DSBA once again enjoys a reputation as one of the premier education advocacy organizations in Delaware.

“We are pleased to have someone with an extensive background in education and finance,” said Chris Kenny, co-chair and founder of ABD. “How our schools are funded are incredibly important, and not enough people are focusing on that aspect of education.” Jane Brady, co-chair of ABD followed, “Marinucci will be a great asset to ABD, and his insights in education will be incredibly helpful in our advocacy efforts.”

John graduated with a degree in Business Administration from Delaware State University. He received an MBA from Wilmington University, before then received his doctoral degree in Educational Leadership and Innovation from Wilmington University. John, his wife Michele, along with their horses, golden retrievers, chickens and barn cats all live in Harrington on their 18-acre horse farm which they’ve named Acacia Branch.  John enjoys tinkering with his 1931 Model A Ford as well as his collection of antique bicycles.  John is also a published author who enjoys creative writing.

Sherri Tull-Hubbard Joins A Better Delaware’s Advisory Board

Sherri Tull-Hubbard has joined the Advisory Board of A Better Delaware, a non-partisan public policy and political advocacy organization which supports pro-growth, pro-jobs policies, and greater transparency and accountability in Delaware’s state government.

Tull-Hubbard is a child therapist, adjunct professor, and retired Captain with the Wilmington Police Department.

Having served on the police force since 1990, she was the first African American woman in the Wilmington Police Department’s 126-year history to be promoted to the rank of Captain.

Tull-Hubbard earned a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology from Bowie State College. During her 28-year career with the Wilmington Police Department, she earned a master’s degree in education and a master’s degree in community counseling from Wilmington University.

She also served as Commander of the Office of Professional Standards, commonly referred to as Internal Affairs.

Chris Kenny, Chairman and Founder of A Better Delaware, announced adding Tull-Hubbard to the Advisory Board last week.

“Sherri Tull-Hubbard has one of the most unique résumés I have seen,” Kenny said. “From her extensive career in law enforcement to her current work treating and supporting children’s mental health, she has dedicated her life to serving the people of Delaware. A Better Delaware is so fortunate to benefit from her extensive knowledge of the issues facing our communities, especially as it relates to the role law and order plays in fostering an environment for businesses to thrive.”

Tull-Hubbard will serve on the Advisory Board alongside former Governor and Congressman Mike Castle, business and civic leader Sam Waltz, and certified elder law attorney William “Bill” Erhart.

“By joining the Advisory Board of A Better Delaware, I hope to continue serving our community by advocating for solutions to the issues facing Delawareans, specifically in mental healthcare,” Tull-Hubbard said. “Having spent the majority of my career in law enforcement, I also know that communities and businesses across our state are facing a substantial increase in retail theft and other crimes that jeopardize the health of our economy.”

“Supporting small businesses means taking steps to deter crime effectively,” Tull-Hubbard continued. “When small businesses are victimized, they oftenreduce hours, increase prices, relocate, and even close shop. A two-fold approach is necessary to address this problem. We must enforce our laws and give business owners an environment to thrive while also working to address the root causes of crime and deficiencies in the mental healthcare system.”

Ethan Lang, executive director of A Better Delaware, said Tull-Hubbard will be invaluable in advancing the organization’s mission.

“In Sherri Tull-Hubbard, A Better Delaware has found a compassionate, dedicated champion for law and order, not to mention the important task of improving children’s health,” Lang said. “She is a beacon of thoughtfulness, service, and principle and will guide our organization as we advocate for policies that promote safety, opportunity, and justice.”