“I’m an idealist without illusions.” — John F. Kennedy
Lately citizens have been asking me what kind of legislator I would be if I were elected. Will I compromise my principles and vote against my better judgment on my colleagues’ bills so I can win their votes for my bills? Have I identified anyone in the Legislature who would support my ideas? Do I realize that pushing bills through the Legislature is a “numbers game,” a game of tit for tat, of “I’ll scratch your back, if you scratch mine”? Am I willing to set aside idealism for two years and play the games of old school politics?
Underneath all those questions, there seems to be one burning question that has been implied but not yet directly asked: How will I avoid burning out, breaking down, and wasting two years of my life?
Most of us by now should be well aware of the games that our lawmakers have played for years in order to win votes, earn favors, pass bills, put a check on independent thinkers within the Legislature, and even put a check on their own constituents. They work behind the scenes, promising votes or favors in exchange for other votes or favors. They manipulate purse strings, session schedules, and meeting agendas to suit their own ends. They exploit the weaknesses of their colleagues and constituents – their gullibility, their egos, their fears. They pass bills quickly and quietly – to appease the governor, perhaps, or to benefit themselves, or to avoid public outcry. If a bill is really controversial, they might schedule a session in Rota or Tinian to avoid scrutiny, or cancel it altogether. They might not break the law, but they are adept at bending it, and can rationalize virtually any decision they make, however unethical it might be.
Such is the culture of gamesmanship that has evolved at our Legislature, a culture that has caused many a good, honest citizen to shudder at the thought of public office. Well-meaning individuals who decide to try it either leave frustrated and disappointed, or they stay year after year and become adept at the manipulation, backstabbing, and other forms of petty politics that have characterized our Legislature. And so the culture of gamesmanship continues.
I can imagine that if one stays in the Legislature long enough, this culture of gamesmanship would begin to seem natural, even inevitable – the way things simply are and the way they always will be. For seasoned politicians, and for weary long-time observers of local politics, a vision of anything different in the Legislature would seem hopelessly idealistic and naïve.
But these politicians and political observers would only be right if the people of this Commonwealth believe they are right. They would only be right if the people also cannot imagine anything different, if they do not believe that they deserve more than gamesmanship from their elected representatives.
And so I come to this crucial point: the culture of gamesmanship at the Legislature will change when the people decide that they want change. Gamesmanship is made possible not only by the politicians who practice it, but also by voters who elect them again and again, and by citizens who keep silent and do nothing even when conscience calls them to speak up and take action.
If we truly want change in the Legislature, why not demand it? If we want new leaders who would refuse to play games in public office, why not elect them, or run for office ourselves? If elected representatives become ostracized in the Legislature for calling for transparency and accountability in government and for defending the public welfare, where will citizens be, what will citizens do?
Will we initiate or respond to calls for action? Will we turn out for public hearings and forums, circulate and sign petitions, send letters of protest or praise, and demonstrate? Will we make an effort to become informed about the issues and the candidates before we vote? Will any of us be willing to step forward to run for public office ourselves someday and be the change we wish to see in the Commonwealth?
Or will we simply shake our heads, keep our mouths shut, feel sympathy for the embattled representative or citizen of the day – and allow other politicians to continue to play games with our tax dollars, our wellbeing, our future?
As citizens we should absolutely be asking all the candidates this year where they stand on the issues we care about, and what they plan to do about the problems of the Commonwealth. But we should also be turning the very same questions to ourselves: where do WE stand on the issues, each one of us, and what do WE plan to do to help?
For myself, I know that I will avoid burning out, breaking down, and wasting two years of my life in public office by upholding my convictions, pushing for maximum transparency and accountability in government, urging other citizens to participate in the affairs of our government, and helping to build a long-term vision for the Commonwealth that incorporates the best ideas and aspirations of all our people.
Problems that have been years in the making will take far longer than two years to resolve, and there is only so much that one person can do alone. But tackling the enormous challenges we face in the Commonwealth should not be the work of only one person, nor should it be the work of only the government. Rebuilding the Commonwealth must be the work of the entire community, and we must be committed to it for the long haul. I am counting on fellow citizens to join me.
I may be reached at 483-3935, or by email at tinasablan@gmail.com .
Tina Sablan
Comments
Tina,
Do you think former Lt. Governor Diego T. Benavente deserves another shot at public service considering 1) he was part of an administration that allegedly mismanaged public funds (as revealed by the present administration); and, 2) is also said to be already campaigning for the ‘09 gubernatorial elections and the speakership for the 16th House of Reps, if elected?
I’m interested to know your thoughts on this issue. Thanks.
A simple yes or no response to my question posted earlier and below would suffice:
Do you think former Lt. Governor Diego T. Benavente deserves another shot at public service considering 1) he was part of an administration that allegedly mismanaged public funds (as revealed by the present administration); and, 2) is also said to be already campaigning for the ‘09 gubernatorial elections and the speakership for the 16th House of Reps, if elected?
I heard that he and Pam Brown are in business together for the
Smart Water Meter installations going on around our villages. I wonder if he still has pending bills etc. he needs to complete.
Sorry, Politrix — I don’t agree that a simple “yes” or “no” answer would suffice for your questions. I have never done well with the “Answer yes or no!” game… But I will respond.
Regarding your first question — in all honesty, like many citizens, I would hesitate to give my vote to any career politician, especially given the mess we are finding ourselves in today — no matter how much I like the man as a person. (And I do like Diego as a person.)
Frankly, I would need to know more about his record. While I was working for DEQ during his administration, I knew and appreciated, for example, that Diego seemed to care a great deal about the environment. I observed and worked with him directly while he was leading the Solid Waste Task Force. A commitment to the environment and public health is something I would look for in any candidate.
But I also know, on the other hand, that Diego was Speaker of the House when the Legislature passed PL 9-2, the law in which they exempted themselves from the provisions of the Open Government Act. And yes, Diego was part of an administration that, like all the administrations before and since, “allegedly” (as you say) mismanaged public funds. And a commitment to transparency and accountability is another value I would look for in a candidate.
So before I would make any decision to vote, rather than pay attention to rumors and speculation, I would go directly to the source and ask him to explain his record. Did he speak up at all about the shenanigans he saw while he was in the House, and later when he became Lt. Governor? And if he didn’t, why not? And if he didn’t, why does he think he deserves another shot at public service?
I would hope that all citizens would ask for more information from all the candidates seeking office, myself included, before they vote.
As for your second question — I don’t see anything illegal or wrong if he is campaigning for 2009, or for speakership. Anyone can campaign for anything at any time. The question is, how will voters make their decision as to whether or not to give that person the office s/he seeks? That question matters more to me.
And you? What do you think, Politrix? (And no, I am not asking for a simple yes or no response from you either. 
)
– Tina
To All the Haters out there on the “No Vote” Please refrain yourselves from removing the signboards because the people will still take this “Act” to court! If and when it does passes, you can count on it!
Tina,
Thank you for your response.
First, you admitted that when Diego was speaker during the Ninth CNMI Legislature, P.L. 9-2 was passed which in effect exempted the Legislature from the Open Gov’t. Act. That is true. Then now I ask you, how do you plan on repealing this nonsensical and unfair law if Diego is the speaker of the House and with the majority of the members behind him?
I AM NOT SUPPORTING DIEGO T. BENAVENTE, PERIOD. Can you say the same? I ask this question because a simple “YES” or “NO” answer certainly responds to the QUESTION on whether you feel he deserves another shot at public office.
And what good would evading the issue do to you or the voters of this precinct if he is already elected into public office? NOTHING, right? Mind you ma’am, hyprocrisy or double standards is a catalyst of discrimination and ultimately, corruption.
Bottomline: There should be no EXEMPTIONS to the standards, principles, and rules that you yourself have created. Otherwise, where’s the transparency that your so passionately advocating?
Right after the much publicized report on failure of candidates failing to appear at the SCC sponsored forums, an incumbent senantor took it upon himself NOT to appear at last night’s senatorial debate.
Why didn’t Sen. Crisostimo appear even while he had informed the Chamber that he will be present at the scheduled event? Is he too good for the public? Is he banking on his incumbency for another shot at four more years? I think neither is the case. Instead, I feel that he knows that being the incumbent candidate, he KNOWS that he has to explain his four-year record as senator; meaning, he cannot promise what he failed to do during his term as a senator. It’s that simple.
In any case, those who missed out on the debate, it was obvious that Clyde K. Norita dominated the forum; hands-down. Coming in second is the GOP’s Andrew Salas followed by Gabriel Babauta and the green party’s very own Ray Dela Cruz. I guess in a situation like this, it is safe to say that the incumbent senator came in at dead last. With this, I ask: Do we re-elect senator Crisostimo? I’m not. Clyde definitely has my vote!!! Hands-down!!!
Wow, with the wave of a wand, the legislature has solved the shortfall they created for CUC. Are these guys magicians or what?
What’s troubling is that the legislators have no “SHAME” since they must know that there are citizens who see through their recent incredulous actions. These legislators are either simpletons or shameless and they think that they “can fool the people all of the time.” Not this November 3, you don’t people.
As for magicians, I never get fooled by magic tricks. I hope our citizens don’t either.
Sad to say but in my over 20 years experience in local politics, I see the CNMI electorate as being nothing more than an “institution” programmed at NOT voting independently. ONLY the individual voters themselves can change this perception and practice.
This November 3, voters should TAKE CHARGE and VOTE INDEPENDENTLY as a MATURE ELECTORATE SHOULD. Trust me, you will feel a whole lot better about yourself.
Hear, hear! Well said Kimo!
56 candidates fighting over 23 legislative seats.
i want to wish each and every one of them the best of luck. also, i will continue to hope and pray that at least one of them will be able to solve our power crisis.
enough of this… and cuc said, “let there be no light.”
seriously… legislators should research and identify sources of revenues or at least look into the possibility of having the nmi retirement fund or mplt (if possible) invest its monies in cuc. being that it is the sole provider of power makes it lucrative, don’t you think?
Bad Behavior has blocked 580 access attempts in the last 7 days.