The agenda for the House session on Wednesday, March 12 was amended once again on the floor.  The following items were added to the agenda:
 

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

• House Bill 16-61:  To authorize bond or other financing not to exceed $20 million for the payment of land compensation claims (Rep. Joseph Reyes)
• House Bill 16-62:  To amend 1 CMC Section 7205 by adding a new subsection (c) to add a penalty provision for the failure to enat a budget by September 1 (Rep. Diego Benavente + 3)
• House Bill 16-63:  To authorize the Dept. of Public Lands to make funds available to be used in the establishment of a Northern Marianas Descent educational assistance program (Rep. Ralph Torres + 2)

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

• S.C.R. 16-7: the Judiciary and Governmental Operations (JGO) committee recommended the passage of H.B. 16-11, to allow the Department of Public Safety enforcement authority, and to strengthen enforcement of the Safe Diving Act.
• S.C.R. 16-8:  the JGO committee recommended the passage of H.B. 16-17, to repeal 8 CMC Sections 1723 thru 1744 and to require the transfer of documents pertaining to birth registrations and issuances of birth certificates from the Clerk of Court to the Health and Vital Statistics Office.
• S.C.R.16-9: The Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) committee and the JGO committee recommended the passage of House Bill 16-30, House Draft 1, to repeal and reenact 1 CMC Section 8248 (b), as amended by Public Law 15-81, to make certain licensed medical, legal, accounting, and other technical professionals exempt from the salary cap of $50,000, and professionals within the legislative and judicial branches eligible for an annual salary cap of up to $60,000, and to repeal 1 CMC Section 1272, which prohibited any employee within the Legislature from earning more than the salary of a legislator.  

BILL CALENDAR

• Two bills were withdrawn from the calendar, H.B. 16-27 (to reappropriate $1.5million from the Office of the Public Auditor’s surplus funds in Fiscal Year 2007 for the paymet of CUC’s non-fuel costs) and H.B. 16-33 (to exempt CUC and NMC from the obligation of all agencies to pay one percent of their annual budgets to the Office of the Public Auditor), following statements submitted by the OPA recommending that the bills not be passed in their present form.  The “surplus” of $1.5million is not a surplus of actual cash available, but only a paper surplus, as many agencies owe OPA.  OPA also recommended a three-year suspension of the one-percent obligation for CUC, but not for NMC. 
• Two bills were added to the calendar: HB 16-55 (to make driving without a license in immediate possession a civil offense, rather than a misdemeanor); and HB 16-30, House Draft 1 (see standing committee report, 16-9, above).

ACTION TAKEN

1.  Two standing committee reports were adopted:

• H.C.R. 16-6: the JGO committee recommended the appointment of Kimberly King-Hinds to serve as member of the Public Utilities Commission representing Tinian)
• H.C.R. 16-9: the HEW committee recommended the passage of HB 16-30, see above

2.  Four bills were passed on First and Final Reading:

• H.B. 16-1, with a floor amendment: to amend the Commonwealth Code to take into account the Rota Casino Initiative recently enacted by the voters of the First Senatorial District, amended to require that the Mayor of Rota shall submit a budget for approval by the Rota Municipal Council, which shall thereafter transmit the budget with any amendments to the Rota Legislative Delegation.
• H.B. 16-7:  to include the electrical system upgrade for the Tinian Junior and Senior High School under the funding appropriated under Public Law 12-69
• H.B. 16-30, House Draft 1:  to provide for flexibility, parity, and accountability in the compensation paid to licensed professionals employed by the government in order to attract and retain qualified and dedicated professionals
• H.B. 16-55: to amend 9 CMC Section 2201, to make driving without a license a civil offense, rather than a misdemeanor, due to the nature of the offense, the lack of a victim, and the cost to the courts in appointing attorneys to represent persons charged under this section

*** 

ON THE BILLS THAT PASSED

I voted yes on all four bills that were passed on Wednesday.  Most of these bills struck me as relatively innocuous and straightforward. There was some contention on the floor about HB 16-30, and some members argued that it would be wrong to add to the list of professional categories exempted from the salary cap, and moreover, to raise the salary cap that applies to professionals within the legislature and judiciary, especially in light of the CNMI’s fiscal situation.  Part of the argument against the bill was that the claim that it was drafted specifically for one person (the pharmacist at CHC).  This claim was disputed by other members, and it was noted that that the bill was drafted for the institution of the hospital, not for any one particular person, and not only for the position of pharmacist, but also other positions (psychiatrists, psychologists, clinical social workers, etc.) that are difficult to recruit for, and retain.  It was also noted that professionals within the legislature and judiciary (legal counsels, clerks, etc.) have been, and continue to be, paid within the proposed $60k salary cap (and in the case of the legislature’s professionals, above the salaries of legislators), and that this has been allowed under prior appropriation acts.   

It was further stated on the floor, however, that there will continue to be a need to reexamine and update the payscales for the government, to ensure that salaries are commensurate with qualifications and position descriptions, and that there is parity within the branches of government with respect to salaries paid to qualified professionals holding similar positions.      

On another note, the frequency with which we suspend the rules in the House (early recalls of bills from committee, placing bills on calendar the day they are introduced, passing on first and final reading, etc.) continues to disturb me.  I have asked, and will continue to ask, for justification as to the necessity of fast-tracking particular bills rather than allowing them to go through the process that is in place to allow for careful deliberation of bills.  Rules are only good insofar as they are actually enforced.  I continue to believe that honoring and enforcing the rules that we have adopted in the House would improve, and not impede, the legislative process.        

ON THE PUC CONFIRMATION PROCESS

The nomination of Ms. Kimberlyn King-Hinds to the Public Utilities Commission was a topic of discussion during the session.  The JGO committee presented a report recommending that she be confirmed.  Documentation was also provided that day that indicated that her drug test results had been received.  Although the results were not disclosed on the floor for obvious confidentiality reasons, it was said that members who wanted to review the results could meet with the committee chairs.

There was then a motion on the floor to adopt the committee report.  I requested that the members consider calling Ms. King-Hinds in for a hearing before adopting the committee report and accepting her nomination.  It was clarified that the motion was to adopt the report, not to accept Ms. King-Hinds’ nomination, and it was further stated that Ms. King-Hinds could not be confirmed anyway until the PUTC committee had also reported out.  The JGO report was adopted and the PUTC committee was then ordered to submit its report by Monday, March 17.  I asked again if there could at least be an opportunity for members to meet with Ms. King-Hinds and interview her to determine that she would indeed be suitable for the position; it was said that that decision would be left to the two committees, JGO and PUTC, that had been assigned to review her nomination.  The JGO committee chair said that she and the majority of the committee members were satisfied that Ms. King-Hinds’ nomination papers were complete and legally sufficient, but said that this did not preclude the PUTC committee from doing a more extensive review of her nomination.  The PUTC committee chair was not present at the session at the time, but the vice-chair said the committee would likely request to file its report recommending confirmation jointly with JGO.    

It seemed to me that there was a rather perplexing reluctance among my colleagues to schedule a confirmation hearing for Ms. King-Hinds.  I do not believe the other two already-confirmed PUC members were called in for hearings either.  I understand that Ms. King Hinds was confirmed by the Senate before she even took her drug test.  The House JGO committee came out with a report recommending her nomination after she took her drug test, but before the results had been received, and there was no committee meeting to discuss her nomination.  As far as I know, the House PUTC committee has also not met to discuss Ms. King-Hinds’ nomination.

I understand the urgency that members feel in appointing a third member to the PUC in a timely manner.  I feel the same urgency.  A third member means that there would then be a quorum and the commission can finally get to work.  However, considering the dire straits into which our public utilities have fallen, it would seem to me that carefully considering the backgrounds, qualifications, and capabilities of all nominees would be just as important to ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of the Public Utilities Commission as establishing a quorum.  Resumes, statements of financial interest, and drug test results are only part of the picture we should be considering. 

I would like to stress that I have absolutely no axe to grind with Ms. King-Hinds.  For me, this is simply about taking our jobs as legislators and the job of a public utilities commissioner seriously enough to care about exercising due diligence in the review of any PUC nomination.  After the session, I called Ms. King-Hinds to request that she come in for a meeting this week, and she agreed.  A date and time should be confirmed by Monday.  All members will be invited to attend.  I have also requested that we hold off on taking a vote to confirm Ms. King-Hinds until members have had at least the opportunity to exercise due diligence in reviewing her nomination.    

***

As always, I welcome comments and questions.  I can be reached at this email, or by phone at 664-8931 or 483-3935.