This is to announce that the House will be holding a Special Session tomorrow, Wednesday, May 29 @ 10am in the House Chamber. Click here for the agenda.
In addition, the House Ways and Means Committee will be meeting today, May 28 @ 2pm with the Secretary of Finance and again at 3:30pm in the House chamber for a budget hearing on the Northern Marianas College.
The House Ways and Means Committee has also scheduled budget hearings on Rota on June 6, 2008 beginning at 9am in the Rota Mayor’s Conference Room with the following agencies:
Public hearings on Tinian are tentatively scheduled for Monday, June 9, though not yet confirmed.
For more information, contact the Office of Rep. Ray Yumul at 664-8841.
This is to announce that the House will be holding a Special Session tomorrow, Friday May 23 @ 10am in the House Chamber. Click here for the draft agenda.
This is to announce that the Senate will be holding a Special Session tomorrow, Friday, May 23 @ 2pm in the Senate chamber. Click here for the agenda.
Also, at 1pm today, Thursday, May 22 in the Senate chamber, Senate and House members will be meeting with Mr. William Aila, a harbor master from Hawaii (Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation, Department of Lands and Natural Resources) and Hawaiian indigenous rights advocate, who sits on the management council for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands national marine monument (Papahanaumokuakea).
Mr. Aila will be discussing his experiences and observations with the national monument negotiation process in Hawaii, and answering questions from the members. Representatives of the Pew Environment Group will also be participating in this meeting.
This is to announce the following legislative meetings/hearings:
Also — volunteers circulating the Open Government Act petitions for signatures are asked to submit their petitions to me by Saturday, May 31. The petitions can be dropped off to me at my office, or I can arrange to pick them up. Please call me at 483-3935 to make arrangements.
This is to announce that the Senate will be holding a special session today, May 15 @ 1:30pm in the Senate chamber.
This is to announce that the House will be going into special session tomorrow, Thursday, May 15 @ 2pm in the House Chamber.
Click here for the Order of Business
Prefiled Bills:
Click to view the following:
Below are the notes from last week’s first quarterly public forum on the State of the Legislature. Topics focused on CUC and reforming the Legislature. If you attended the forum, please let me know if I have missed or misstated anything. My thanks to all who helped organize the forum, and all who were able to participate.
Also, if anyone would like to help collect signatures for the petition to apply the Open Government Act to the Legislature, please let me know. You don’t have to be a registered voter of the CNMI to collect signatures, but you do have to be a currently registered voter for your signature to count (if you voted in the last election, you are current). Petitions will be collected and submitted at the end of this month.
Please feel free to share this email with others. For comments or questions, I can be reached at 483-3935, 664-8931, or by email at tinasablan@gmail.com .
STATE OF THE LEGISLATURE PUBLIC FORUM #1
May 7, 2008
Venue: Multipurpose Center (Annex), Susupe
Time: 6pm-8pm
# of people: approximately 60
Format: Ground rules governing the forum were established and agreed upon. Two binders containing status reports of legislation introduced in the House and Senate; attendance records; voting records; and contact information for all members of the legislature were circulated, and participants interested in obtaining electronic copies of these records signed up for them. Discussion began on the general purpose of the forums, and moved to specific topics: 1) CUC and the Commonwealth’s energy crisis; and 2) Reforming the Legislature. Tina Sablan facilitated the discussion and took notes.
GROUND RULES
PURPOSE OF THE FORUMS
CUC & THE ENERGY CRISIS
1. Updates were provided on:
2. Recent calls have been made to convene a CNMI Energy Summit to engage the leaders of the Commonwealth and the community in urgently-needed short-term, medium-term, and long-term energy planning. It was said that day-to-day crises at CUC and political bickering and electioneering within the Legislature and between the Legislature and the Administration have thus far prevented any cooperative planning efforts toward resolving the CNMI’s energy problems. The Washington Representative, the Vice Speaker, and other House members have thus far publicly expressed support for the summit. Technical assistance is available to the CNMI to help guide the planning process. Widespread public support for such a summit can help persuade other leaders to come to the table.
3. Some forum participants asked why the federal government is not doing more to help the CNMI in its worsening utilities crisis; others asked why the Governor has not asked the federal government for more help. It was noted that there is generally a lack of information about how federal capital improvement funds are being spent, and how they can be reprogrammed to address the CNMI’s utilities problems. Questions also were asked about Compact Impact funds owed to the local government, and if local government officials couldn’t do more to garner funds owed by the federal government which could be directed toward utilities and other critical public services.
5. On leadership during this utilities crisis, and the need for citizens to get organized: Forum participants said they feel that the leaders of the Commonwealth do not truly care about the suffering of the community. Frustration was expressed about how the government is “cannibalizing” itself to pay for fuel and still the Commonwealth’s leaders seem unwilling or unable to work together to address the power crisis. Meanwhile, the government continues to blast its air conditioning and lawmakers continue to drive luxury cars at the expense of taxpayers. Some noted that few legislators were present at the forum and asked why. It was said that citizens need to get more organized and begin staging demonstrations at the legislature, the governor’s office, and at the federal courthouse to call on local and federal government officials to resolve the utilities crisis.
5. On energy self-sufficiency: It was said that citizens need to rely less on government and more on themselves, particularly with respect to energy self-sufficiency. Energy was said to be the most important issue facing the community right now. Fuel prices are likely to continue to rise, and the CNMI has an opportunity to change to become a more sustainable community. Public Law 15-23, the Renewable Energy Act, requires CUC to implement net energy metering to allow for homeowners and businesses to install their own renewable energy devices and feed power back into the grid. The problem is that regulations have not yet been promulgated. It was said that net energy metering regulations should be a top priority for the new PUC.
6. On the Public Utilities Commission: Concern was expressed about the Legislature’s move to pass legislation (now PL 16-2) to allow the PUC to conduct business with a quorum of one, in the event that two of the three members resign or are removed. Participants also asked when the PUC would be moving to set utility rates and it was noted that the commissioners must be sent to rate-setting training. Participants also asked who would be paying for this training, and expressed concerns about the additional cost to the government.
7. On privatization: It was said that the CNMI government needs to stop talking about privatization and move decisively to actually do it, and do it right. The government has a history of failed privatization attempts, and it was said that the failure to privatize has been more political than anything else (i.e., politicians are afraid of losing votes if jobs are lost; corruption and personal interests have thwarted privatization efforts in the past). But by now the government has proven that it cannot run the utilities effectively, and consumer suffering grows. Participants said they felt that CUC continues to be overstaffed, salary scales are completely disjointed, and incompetent management continues to plague the agency. Taxpayers are not only subsidizing fuel, but payroll as well.
Participants asked if the government was considering Telesource’s offer, or the proposal to introduce new and safer models of nuclear technology to the CNMI. Although it was agreed that unsolicited proposals should be examined cautiously, it was also said that such proposals should at least be considered, and the community should be informed about how the government is handling them.
REFORMING THE LEGISLATURE
1. On the Open Government Act initiative: Background was given on the initiative petition to apply the Open Government Act to the Legislature. It was during the 9th legislature that lawmakers voted to exempt themselves from the Open Government Act; this popular initiative is an effort to restore the OGA’s applicability to the Legislature.
Approximately 2500 signatures of registered voters were collected during the Open Government Act initiative drive last year – not enough to get on the ballot last year, but possibly enough to get on the ballot for the next general election. The signatures were submitted to the Attorney General’s Office on May 5, and the petition has since been revived to collect additional signatures in order to ensure the initiative’s placement on the ballot.
There is still a question about whether or not the initiative will be placed on the ballot at this year’s delegate election. The definition of “regular general election” needs to be clarified. If the initiative is certified, but not placed on the ballot this year, it will certainly be placed on the ballot for 2009.
Open Government Act petitions were passed around at the end of the evening. Volunteers were asked to collect signatures and submit by the end of the month.
2. House Legislative Initiative 16-7, which proposes to reduce the size of the Legislature and improve efficiency and accountability of the Legislative Bureau, was briefly discussed. Some participants asked, how much does each legislator actually cost taxpayers? It was said that this information should be made public, and might help to galvanize a grassroots movement for reform. It was said that the size of government should be proportionate to its citizenry, that government is too big in the CNMI, and that the CNMI needs a part-time legislature of qualified individuals. It was also noted that voters need more choices of candidates, since relatively few options mean that the same individuals are likely to be elected again and again. The number of candidates for the same number of offices has steadily decreased over the years. Participants were encouraged to call or write their legislators to urge them to pass this initiative and place it on the ballot at the next election. It was also suggested that the legislative initiative be turned into a popular initiative if the Legislature would not entertain the proposal.
THE NEXT FORUM
The next quarterly forum will be scheduled at the end of July. Participants suggested that the following topics be considered for discussion: healthcare in the CNMI; crime (in particular, rising sex crimes against children); and the solvency of the Retirement Fund. It was also suggested that public forums focused on CUC should be held on a more frequent (i.e., monthly) basis.
End.
This is to announce that the following legislative meetings will be held tomorrow, Tuesday, May 13:
1. House Committee on Health, Education, and Welfare @ 9am (apologies, I do not have an agenda for this meeting).
2. Presentation and discussion on House Bill 16-77, the CUC Private Sector Partnership Act of 2008 @ 10am in the House Chamber;
3. House Committee on Commerce and Tourism @ 1:30pm in the Speaker’s Conference Room to review the following bills:
This is to announce that there will be a public forum on the State of the Legislature on Wednesday, May 7 at the Multipurpose Center in Susupe, in the Annex, beginning at 6pm.
This forum is the first of what will be a series of quarterly forums over the next two years. The objectives of the State of the Legislature public forums are to provide the community with information on activities within the Legislature on an on-going basis, including bills introduced, voting records, and attendance records of members of the House and Senate; to share insights on the legislative process and how it can be improved; and to promote dialogue in the community on the issues of the day and proposed solutions. Comments, insights, and suggestions will be solicited from forum participants, documented, publicized through various media, and transmitted to elected officials. As with the public forums held last year, these State of the Legislature forums will be guided by ground rules. These ground rules include:
The following topics are proposed for discussion at this first public forum:
Other topics may be added if time is available.
The forum is free and open to the public. For more information, I can be reached at 664-8931 or 483-3935, or by email at tinasablan@gmail.com .
This week the Legislature overwhelmingly passed House Bill 16-79, SD2, HD2, SS1, and today sends the bill to the governor. Eight senators voted yes on the bill, with only Senate President Pete Reyes abstaining. Sixteen representatives voted yes on the bill, with only Rep. Edward Salas and myself voting against it, and Rep. Stanley Torres abstaining. Rep. Ray Yumul was absent. House Bill 16-79, SD2, HD2, SS1 was a substitute bill for House Bill 16-79, originally sponsored by Speaker Arnold Palacios, Rep. Heinz Hofschneider, and myself. The original bill proposed to repeal Public Law 15-94, which rolled back the utility rates to 17 cents/kwh, and return CUC to the rate structure that had been in place before Public Law 15-94 in order to allow CUC to charge rates that would cover the cost of fuel.
The substitute bill that passed in the Senate two days ago, and in the House yesterday was very different. Indeed, it was a combination of two bills, HB 16-79 (mentioned above) and HB 16-90, which had proposed to grant the governor and other expenditure authorities unlimited reprogramming authority for lapsed funds in the remainder of the fiscal year, and to borrow from the Retirement Fund in order to subsidize fuel, among other measures. House Bill 16-90 had passed in the House last week on first and final reading the day it was introduced, with only one “no” vote (mine), and without a committee report.
The resulting combination bill, House Bill 16-79, SD2, HD2, SS1, also came with provisions not found in either the original HB 16-79 or HB 16-90. The Senate Fiscal Affairs Committee, to its credit, did come out with a report that attempted to justify the passage of the bill, but even that report acknowledged a glaring lack of information about the potential impacts of the proposed legislation.
If signed into law, House Bill 16-79, SD2, HD2, SS1 would:
In my comments today on the floor, I stated that I could not in good conscience support HB 16-79, SD2, HD2, SS1 because it is, at its core, an act of fear and poor planning.
While I fully realize the dire straits into which CUC has fallen, we solve neither our immediate nor our long term problems by raising taxes without cutting costs, by borrowing from the Retirement Fund which is teetering on the brink of insolvency because of this government’s continuing failure to pay its debts, or by making the Public Utilities Commission vulnerable to abuse. I noted that we are actually even worsening our problems by further increasing our liabilities, damaging our credit rating, and impairing our ability to secure financing for critical infrastructure at affordable rates — at a time when we are considering not one, but several proposals, to issue public debt.
I also asked how we could possibly pass this bill without having a full picture of the funds that would be generated and the impacts on public services.
We did not know, for example, how much money actually exists in CUC’s trust fund for security deposits. We also could not say with a reasonably straight face, not matter what the bill said, that we actually expected CUC, notorious for its accounting mishaps and auditing nightmares, to use only 50% of the security deposits and return those funds within three years.
We had not investigated the potential impacts of raising taxes — on banks and other financial institutions, and on all clients of the CNMI government who would have to pay 100% higher fees now to drive, get married, obtain a police report, etc.
We proposed to borrow, once again, from the Retirement Fund — even after just receiving their very sobering actuarial report last week, knowing that the Fund has been forced to liquidate assets to pay its pensioners, knowing that the central government has not been paying into the Fund at all, knowing that the Fund cannot afford it, and knowing that the government’s liabilities to the Fund comprise the single largest reason why the government’s financial performance ratings have declined dramatically, hindering our ability to secure bonds at affordable rates, at a time when we are considering issuing public debt to finance a utilities overhaul and to pay off our obligation to the Fund. When does the bleeding stop?
We did not know the impact that these measures will have on the Marpi landfill, which is already bordering on noncompliance with EPA standards and may be shut down or subject to hefty fines as a result of this bill, if signed into law. We also did not know the impact of these measures on the public services that depend on the Tobacco Control Fund.
We also proposed to give $80,000 in startup funding to PUC, not knowing whatever became of the funds that had supposedly remained with the now-defunct Commonwealth Telecommunications Commission. This question was raised at the House session last week, but it was never resolved. Even more alarmingly, the bill proposed to allow PUC to set rates without a quorum, even if there is only one commissioner, and without prior public hearing or notice, or any supporting documents, or any discussion or deliberation. Why, then, even have a PUC? Is it really that much worse to have an unregulated utility, than to have one or two PUC czars calling the shots under the guise of oversight?
And we proposed, once again, to give the governor and other expenditure authorities unlimited powers to reprogram lapsed funds, retroactive to October 1, 2007, not knowing if they have already exceeded their budget authority, nor even knowing exactly how much money we are talking about, since apparently the most recent data that the Senate Committee had at its disposal when it drafted its report are almost three months old. Moreover, we tread into dangerous territory when we relinquish our authority to control the government purse. Suppose the Governor were to use his unlimited reprogramming powers to direct funding towards costly litigation against the federal government, or towards expensive and ambiguous consultancies? Can any of us honestly say that this would be a prudent use of funds in the best interests of the public, given our serious infrastructural and fiscal woes? But the bill offers no controls whatsoever to safeguard against waste. Unlimited power is, well, unlimited.
I asked at the session, How can we vote on this measure not knowing, really, what we are voting on? How is this bill a solution? And I stated that we have not done enough as a body with the solutions that are already staring us in the face.
We know, for instance, that there are unexpended federal funds – tens of millions of dollars available to the CNMI for capital improvements — that could be directed towards CUC, but are not. Why not? I said that we could certainly do far more than we have thus far to investigate the reasons for this government’s failure to utilize these funds, and make those reasons known to our people, who are asking the very same questions. I also noted that House Bill 16-77, which would lay down the guidelines for a transparent and legitimate privatization process for CUC, that includes mandates for renewable energy, sits in the House PUTC committee, and that we could act on that bill. I finally noted that we could do far more to cut costs in all branches of government — that downsizing is inevitable, but we have to have the will and the capacity to be honest with our people when we do so.
I also recalled the Speaker’s inaugural address just four months ago, during which he urged for a new era of policy-making to begin with this legislature. He said that we must stop with the shortsighted, shoot-from-the-hip strategies that have characterized legislatures of the past. He also said that we needed a plan. I agree.
While we all recognize the urgency of our times, we should not be driven by fear or desperation when we act. We do indeed need a plan – a sound, cohesive, transparent, and long-term plan that involves the concerted efforts of all the leaders of the Commonwealth. Such a plan cannot be developed in private, backroom meetings where deals are struck between a handful of members and the governor (which was essentially how HB 16-79, SD2, HD2, SS1 was developed). These meetings are the trademark of old policies and tired politics that have not served our people.
Such a plan also cannot be developed alone, and I noted that while I was fully cognizant that there is only so much that I can do as one member — and a freshman and independent, at that – I am nevertheless ready to participate and lend my full support if and when the members of the Legislature and the administration would be ready to change the old ways of doing things and engage in meaningful and measured planning and action.
In the meantime, however, I said that I could not be complicit in the shortsighted and fear-driven policies that were put forth in the bill we just passed. I requested that my name be removed from the list of sponsors (all of the original sponsors of HB 16-79 were still listed on this substitute bill), and I ultimately voted no.
The response of other members was, interestingly, not to deny anything that I had said, except for the part about the bill being driven by fear. It was said that this bill, instead, is driven by “reality” — the reality that CUC is penniless and may run out of fuel and no one wants to be blamed for not taking action if islandwide blackouts occur. It was also said that because this bill is an appropriations bill, that the governor would have the power to line-item veto parts of the bill that he would find undesirable, and the hope was expressed that he would delete the provisions that the Senate had added that would grant undue powers to the PUC.
The “reality” I see, however, is that we have been worried about CUC running out of fuel for months and still we do not have a plan; that we continue to strike deals in private backroom meetings rather than tackling the CUC problem openly, transparently, and cooperatively among all the leaders of the CNMI; that we would abruptly raise taxes for banks and essentially raise taxes in the form of doubled government fees without so much as a fiscal impact analysis; that we still have not cut government payroll in any significant way; that we have given the governor unlimited reprogramming authority and have provided no real safeguards against waste; that we have not yet taken action on critical privatization legislation before us; that we have made it possible for the PUC to set rates with a “quorum” of one person; that apparently tens of millions of unspent federal capital improvement funds are sitting in the bank that could be used for utilities but, inexplicably, are not; and that we instead prefer to once again borrow from the Retirement Fund as a band-aid fix, crippling the already-crippled fund even more while still not saving CUC.
IN OTHER NEWS
Update on House Resolution 16-9
House Resolution 16-9, which proposes to amend the House rules to require at least three business days’ notice, with agendas, for legislative sessions and committee meetings, and to require the posting of legislative records on the official Legislature website for public access, has been sitting on the resolution calendar for nearly a month waiting for action. At yesterday’s session, I asked when the body would be acting on the resolution.
The Speaker noted that he had asked the Floor Leader, Rep. Joseph Camacho, who also chairs the Ad Hoc Committee on the Rules, to review the proposed amendments and come out with a report. Floor Leader Camacho stated that his committee did not yet have a report and he asked for more time, as the proposed amendments were “controversial” and would therefore require proper review. I asked what exactly was so controversial about requiring public notice for legislative meetings, and the Floor Leader’s response was that public notice could be “costly” and also hinder the efforts of the Legislature to address the many pressing problems facing the Commonwealth. I then responded out that the proposed amendments to the rules did include provisions for waiving public notice in the event of emergencies, and also remarked that there were costs involved in passing legislation without proper review and opportunity for public comment, too. I then requested that the Speaker issue a deadline for the Ad Hoc Committee on the Rules to come up with a report on the resolution, and he ordered that a report should be issued as soon as possible, but no later than three weeks from yesterday, May 1. The Floor Leader then made a motion to remove the resolution from the calendar and refer it to his committee, and the motion passed by a majority voice vote.
It is rather ironic that the “controversy” of yesterday’s session was, not the bill that would borrow from retirees to pay for fuel, raise taxes, give the governor unlimited reprogramming authority, and make a travesty of PUC, but a resolution that simply proposes to give the public full and fair notice of legislative meetings, and online access to legislative records. Where House Resolution 16-9 has been sitting on the calendar for a month and apparently requires extensive committee review before the body can act on it, House Bill 16-79, SD2, HD2, SS1, by contrast, passed on first and final reading in back-to-back Senate and House sessions, with little to no opportunity for public comment.
On the Resident Foreign National Status Act, HB 16-86
House Bill 16-86, introduced last week by myself and Reps. Hofschneider, Salas, and Hocog, proposes to amend the CNMI immigration code to add a new permit category of “Resident Foreign National” that would give eligible foreign national workers five-year permits to work at will in the Commonwealth. The bill is intended to stabilize the CNMI’s workforce, particularly in this transition period between when the federalization bill is expcted to be signed into law (soon) and when the federal immigration regulations are promulgated (a year to 18 months from the date of enactment); to stabilize the business community and relieve the bureaucratic burdens that businesses must undergo with the current system of annual permit applications and renewals; to stabilize families in the Commonwealth whose members include citizens (many of whom are children) and long-term foreign national workers who are restricted to a single employer, unable to transfer jobs without an administrative hearing, and subject to a two-month or six-month periodic exit under current labor law; to promote competition among employers for labor, and thereby encourage higher wages and better working conditions overall for all workers, citizen as well as non-citizen; and to relieve the administrative and regulatory burdens of the Dept. of Labor.
Some controversy and misunderstanding surround this bill, to be sure. I am preparing a more extensive statement to explain the purposes of the bill, which should be coming out shortly, and to address the concerns and confusion that have come to the attention of the Legislature. There should definitely be greater community dialogue about not only the practical, economic issues, but also the social and moral issues that are raised by the bill.
The bill’s cosponsors and I will be on the Harry Blalock show on Monday at 7am. It will be a call-in show (235-5064), and all comments and questions are welcome.
On the gambling bill, HB 16-82
As was reported last week, the House voted overwhelmingly to kill House Bill 16-82, which would have authorized casino gaming at La Fiesta Mall. I was among the members who voted no on the bill, for the reasons that were cited by several other members on the floor before we cast our votes: 1) the people of Saipan had just voted no on the casino initiative in November 2007 and we should respect their wishes; 2) the Tinian and Rota casino industries should be allowed to develop without the constant uncertainty posed by efforts to legalize casino gaming on Saipan too.
On the Senate Joint Resolution re the proposed Marianas Trench national monument
I was extremely disappointed by the Legislature’s adoption of the Senate Joint Resolution that asked President Bush to refrain from unilaterally designating the area surrounding the three northernmost islands of the CNMI a national marine monument and further expressed “fervent” opposition to the proposal. I stated on the floor that I felt it would be premature for us to reject the proposal outright when most of us had not even heard the proposal, when discussion in the community had just begun, and when there were clearly many misperceptions and misunderstandings even among the legislators that had not yet been fully aired and addressed. I offered amendments that would have removed the clauses that “fervently opposed” the national monument proposal altogether, while retaining the clauses that opposed unilateral designation and that requested more information. None of the amendments I offered was adopted. Some members claimed that there was an “urgency” in passing the resolution as soon as possible. Three members voted no to the resolution: Reps. Hofschneider, Salas, and myself.
REMINDERS
Bad Behavior has blocked 348 access attempts in the last 7 days.