There will be a Senate session today, February 21, at 10am.  The agenda is attached in this email (my apologies, I had to scan each page separately as I couldn’t get an electronic copy today).
 
Also, the Ways and Means committee will be meeting at 9:30 this morning to continue budget discussions.

 Click Links Below for:

• Agenda Page 1
• Agenda Page 2
• Agenda Page 3
• Agenda Page 4
• Agenda Page 5

 

On the use of public funds for charitable donations, and the budget of the legislatureBefore entering public office, I made two commitments.  One, I resolved to advocate for a more open and honest government and to practice transparency in my own conduct as an elected representative.  And two, I committed to exploring ways to decrease the cost of government, and to exercise prudence in my own office in ensuring that public funds are prioritized and allocated for the greater good of the people of the CNMI.   

Since coming into public office, I have received requests on an almost daily basis for “donations” of picnic tables, tents, water, other in-kind contributions, and money.  The requests come from youth centers, schools, nonprofit organizations, families that have lost loved ones, and private citizens.  Usually, in return for a “donation,” I am offered special recognition as a “sponsor” – my name and position as a member of the House on a banner, for instance, or expressions of gratitude at regular intervals over a P.A. system at a public event.  I have also received numerous requests for jobs, mostly from prospective community workers who offer to erect tents, build tables, paint bus stops and trash cans, and attend funerals in my name.  I have declined all these requests. 

It is not that these are not worthy causes.  It is not that I do not care about children, or about bereaved families, or about keeping the neighborhoods in my precinct clean.   

For me, saying no to requests for donations is a matter of principle.  It is about honoring the public trust, focusing on our constitutionally mandated responsibilities as legislators, and expending money wisely and with our priorities firmly in place.  The public money that legislators spend on “donations” to schools and youth centers, for instance, is money that should be appropriated to the Public School System and the youth centers themselves.  The public money that legislators spend on municipal services such as neighborhood cleanups and park maintenance is money that should be appropriated to the agencies that are already mandated to carry out those responsibilities.  

I firmly believe that if legislators would focus on their primary duty to enact good laws and allocate public funds fairly and responsibly, the Commonwealth would not need a full-time Legislature, and it would certainly not need such an expensive one.  Under the Constitution, on top of salaries, each individual legislator can receive a maximum amount of $155,000 for their discretionary funds.  Legislators from Tinian and Rota can receive up to $5000 a month for their subsistence allowances, and so can senators from

Saipan.  Presiding officers for the House and Senate can receive up to $400,000 each.   

Now, to be fair, like last year’s budget, the new budget for Fiscal Year 2008, which we are working on now, does not propose to give those maximum amounts to the Legislature.  At yesterday’s budget meeting, allocations of $105,000 per individual member, and of $175,000 each for the Office of the Speaker and for the Office of the Senate President were proposed.  A total Full-Time Employee (FTE) ceiling of 349 was also proposed, inclusive of the House and Senate members and their staff (312), the staff of the Legislative Bureau (36), and the Youth Congress (1).   

I proposed yesterday to cut the individual and leadership allocations even more and also to reduce the FTE ceiling of the Legislature.  I said that if we were going to slash the budgets of other agencies and eliminate FTEs, then we should lead by example and cut our own budgets and FTE ceilings, and allocate those funds to critical services.  I suggested that we reduce the proposed allocation to $75,000 per individual member, cut the leadership allocations to $100,000, limit the number of personal staff per individual member to 1, and eliminate the number of staff that can be hired for the committees altogether.   

In response, the other members pointed out that even though the ceiling of 349 was set for the Legislature, that 349 people were not actually employed at the Legislature.  That number was just to “provide flexibility’ to the legislators to hire staff that they might need.  It was also said that if the Legislature reduces its budget so dramatically now, that it is likely to be even lower in the next fiscal year.  Some members noted that even though they understood that there are too many duplicated functions within the government, that they are still expected to provide certain public services for the community and that they use their discretionary funds for those purposes.  Other members noted that there are certain charitable causes to which they would like to dedicate a portion of their discretionary funds, and cited one of the local youth centers as an example.  

I stated that a legislature that gives itself a ceiling of 349 FTEs that it does not actually need is essentially advertising itself as an employment agency, in a time when other agencies must cope with limited funds, hiring freezes, and significantly reduced FTE ceilings.  I also said that rather than each individual legislator picking and choosing which causes to support through the discretionary funds, we should simply cut our own budgets and appropriate those funds to the programs and agencies that we all agree are priorities.     

My position is that if we donate money or volunteer our time for any cause, we should do so out of our own pockets and on our own time – not in our official capacities as members of the House, but in our private capacities as members of this community.  In other words, “donations” using public funds are not donations at all, but an unfair and selective allocation of taxpayer dollars.  I also believe that legislators who spend time and public funds providing needed municipal services are perpetuating the inefficient and costly practice of duplicating government functions and inadequately appropriating funds to the agencies that are tasked with providing those same services – and if we know that, we should put a stop to it.       

None of the members agreed, and all voted to retain the proposed budget for the Legislature.        

Later that evening, and shortly after the budget meeting, I went to a Parent-Teacher Association meeting at

San Antonio Elementary School.  I was there for three reasons: 1) to explain to the principal, teachers, parents, and students of the school why I had declined their request for tables and tents to support a school fundraiser at the end of the month; 2) to give them an update of the budget process; and 3) to listen to the concerns of the school.   

After explaining my position on charitable donations using public funds, and describing the budget meeting from which I had just come, I sat down and listened during the rest of the meeting.  They discussed a school fundraiser for toilet paper and school supplies.  They planned a schoolwide cleanup, and called for donations for rakes, bushcutters, and gasoline, because there is only one groundskeeper and no money for fuel to run his bushcutter or to hire additional FTEs to assist him.  They talked about an emergency electrical upgrade of the school had to be done recently, because equipment had literally burned out – this project drained the school of its remaining capital improvement funds.  They talked about recent incidents of violence on campus – between students and between parents.  They talked about increasing incidents of diabetes and obesity among the Commonwealth’s children, and their struggle to fight that trend with limited resources.   

They also asked if education was truly a priority for the politicians that have campaigned all these years on that issue, if politicians are not willing to cut their own budgets to appropriate funds that are needed to ensure that schools are safe and properly equipped.  And they said that if legislators would only appropriate the resources that schools need through the budgeting process, they would not be asking for donations to begin with.  I agreed.  

When we took our oaths of office, we accepted the responsibility of ensuring that public funds are allocated fairly and for the greater good of all our people.  This necessarily means that we should not be selective in our allocations of taxpayer dollars in ways that we hope will ensure reelection.  In these difficult economic times, we should be prepared as legislators to make the same significant sacrifices that we ask of our colleagues in other branches of government.  Moreover, if there remains room to cut the excesses of public office that have prevailed all these years, so that essential public services can be better funded, then our sense of ethics and responsibility should compel us to make those necessary cuts.    

Before I entered public office, I was told by a number of people, including quite a few experienced politicians, that the pressure from requests for “donations” is enormous and I would probably eventually cave in, particularly if I hope to be reelected.  But besides the fact that I am not worried about reelection, it should be noted that I was elected in the first place on a platform that was based on transparency and frugality.   And while in office, I intend to remain true to the commitments that I made before I was elected.  

As always, I welcome questions and comments from the community.  I may be reached at 664-8931 or 483-3935, or by email at tinsablan@gmail.com . 

This is to announce that the following committees will be meeting tomorrow,  Tuesday, February 19:

• Federal and Foreign Relations — 9am, Speaker’s Conference Room to discuss goals and objectives for the committee
• Ways and Means — 1pm, House Chamber, to discuss the budget

Also, as a reminder, while we continue to push for the Legislature’s official website, www.cnmileg.gov.mp , to be reactivated, updated, and improved — all introduced bills can can be downloaded at Floor Leader Rep. Joseph Camacho’s website, www.camachocnmi.com .    
 
A new poll has been added to the Floor Leader’s website regarding land ownership in the CNMI, and everyone is encouraged to participate.  This poll follows the public outreach efforts of the Humanities Council to collect articles related to land ownership in the CNMI and to encourage community dialogue on Article XII, and more recently, the introduction of an initiative in the House to extend leases of private land to persons not of Northern Marianas Descent to 75 years, and Rep. Joseph Camacho’s latest letter to the editor on Article XII.
 

My apologies for not posting this earlier — there was a Ways and Means meeting yesterday at 1:30pm in the House Chamber.  On the agenda was the cover-over issue, the budget, and two bills, H.B. 16-1 to amend the Commonwealth Code to take into account the recently enacted Rota Casino Initiative; and H.B. 16-3, to amend the Commonwealth Code to earmark Gross Receipts Taxes collected from gambling establishments in Rota so they may be appropriated by the Saipan and Northern Islands delegation.  Both bills were introduced by Rep. Vic Hocog of Rota. 
 
Two additional bills were added to the agenda at yesterday’s meeting: H.B. 16-2, to more equitably reallocate poker license fees to each senatorial district, introduced by Rep. Vic Hocog,  and H.B. 16-7, to include the electrical system upgrade for the Tinian Junior and Senior High School under funding that had been appropriated by Public Law 12-69, introduced by Rep. Edwin Aldan of Tinian.  All bills introduced passed in the committee.
 
Budget discussions will continue during today’s Ways and Means Committee meeting, Friday, February 15, at 2pm in the House Chamber. 

ON THE BUDGET

We don’t have a budget yet, and frankly I think that everything else that we’re doing in the Legislature should be put on hold until we pass a balanced budget.  Passing the budget is the single most important responsibility of the House of Representatives.   

Part of the difficulty we are having in passing a budget is that the government has not followed the Planning and Budgeting Act.  This includes both the Executive and Legislative branches, and goes back to the 15^th Legislature.  Under the Planning and Budgeting Act, the proposed budget should include: 

• A balanced budget, meaning revenues should have been equal to outlays;
• A detailed, current estimate of all the anticipated financial resources of the Commonwealth, including Covenant funds, unobligated balances, federal loans, grants, and other monies, a breakdown by type, and whether or not they are available to be appropriated;
• A statement of the basis for all estimates of financial resources, including a comparative analysis of available data for the two complete past years and the current year;
• Schedules of amounts obligated in the two complete past years, the amounts appropriated in the current year, and the amounts proposed to be appropriated for the budget year;
• Etc.

  A proposed balanced budget was supposed to have been prepared and submitted no later than six months before the beginning of the fiscal year.  Any adjustments or amendments should have been submitted no later than three months before the beginning of the fiscal year.  This means that a balanced budget should have been submitted in April 2007, and adjustments should have been submitted in July, and the Legislature should have taken final action on the budget within 30 days.   

The proposed budget wasn’t submitted, however, until September 2007, just weeks before the end of the fiscal year.  It was also an unbalanced budget because it makes several problematic assumptions, including a Retirement Fund employer contribution of 11% (it is actually 18%), and the enactment of the unpaid holiday bill which has yet to pass in the Legislature, among other things.  Moreover, not all of the information that we need (for example, actual expenditures for the past two years, or even just the past year) has been provided in the proposed budget plan.       

There has been discussion among the legislators about passing a continuing resolution, since we are already in the second quarter of FY 2008, and focusing instead on a budget for FY 2009.  Another suggestion has been to pass a balanced budget that corrects the Governor’s previous assumptions, which would very likely mean more job cuts, or another across-the-board salary decrease (either a flat rate or proportional), or a tax increase, or a year-long suspension of rebates, or a combination of these measures.  It has also been proposed that the Governor should be granted the same unlimited reprogramming authority he had from the 15th legislature to provide for critical services, such as public health, public schools, and public safety.      

I think it would be absolutely irresponsible of us to pass a continuing resolution and allow this government to operate on the same spending level as it did last year.  A continuing resolution is a guaranteed ticket to more government inefficiency and ineffectiveness.  It means even more uncertainty in this already-uncertain time.  When regular appropriations are delayed, agencies don’t know how much money they truly have to spend, and may try to hoard funds, not obtain the resources they need to do their jobs, or end up overspending.  We simply cannot afford to pass a continuing resolution.     

Most of us would agree that the responsible thing to do would be to pass a balanced budget as soon as possible.  If we don’t have the information that we need to pass a balanced budget now, then we return the unbalanced budget to the Administration and go back to the table with them to agree upon the measures we would take to cut costs, generate revenue, or both, in order to realize a balanced budget. 

I further disagree with the proposal to give the Governor unlimited reprogramming authority.  It would certainly be easier to blame him if anything goes wrong, but I truly believe we would be shirking our own responsibility to be fiscally prudent and to provide oversight in the expenditure of public funds.   Why not follow the guidelines for reprogramming that are provided in the Planning and Budgeting Act?   

The Planning and Budgeting Act already gives the Governor reprogramming authority for the operations and activities of the Executive Branch, including all those critical services that fall under his jurisdiction – up to 25%.  He certainly has the power to reprogram more if he declares a state of emergency.  Otherwise, to reprogram more than 25%, the Governor must submit his request to the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Committee on Fiscal Affairs, and his request would be considered approved unless either Committee disapproves the request within 20 calendar days.   If the reprogramming request is truly to provide for critical services, why in the world would either committee disapprove?  This way, we all share responsibility for providing for those critical services, and the burden does not fall on only one person to decide what is critical and what is not.   

Looking ahead to Fiscal Year 2009 – we should be thinking now about ways to avoid repeating the problems with which we struggle in this fiscal year.  It would not be a waste of time or money to begin government-wide desk audits and performance evaluations, overhauling our personnel management policies and pay scales, and eliminating duplications between agencies.  It would be an investment.  I also think we should implement meaningful penalties for failing to meet the deadlines stipulated in the Planning and Budget Act.  At a minimum, legislators and the governor and lieutenant governor should not get paid until a balanced budget has been passed.       

 

UPDATES ON CUC

Legislators met with CUC, EPA, and several CUC consultants yesterday for a briefing on the stipulated order that is still being negotiated between CUC, EPA, and the Department of Justice to address CUC’s on-going water and wastewater violations.  EPA described

Saipan’s water and wastewater utility services as among the worst in the nation, with 44 health violations posted since 2001.   

The power crisis has directly contributed to the deterioration of our water and wastewater utilities, of course.  The three utilities commingle finances, and resources have been diverted away from water and wastewater to pay for fuel.   

Although the CUC and EPA representatives were unable to discuss specifics of the stipulated order, it was encouraging to hear that a long-range strategy is being developed to not only address the specific and critical public health concerns that are raised by the water and wastewater violations, but to improve the overall utility system by addressing the root causes of the violations, which are 1) chronic underfunding for capital improvements and operations and maintenance; and 2) a lack of technical expertise – not enough skilled personnel.   

A similar enforcement action took place in

Guam in 2003, also for water and wastewater violations, with very successful results.  Utility management and financing experts and engineers came in and worked with existing staff to develop short-term and long-term strategies for improving the utilities.  Wastewater violations are now down by 99% and water quality has improved dramatically.  The utility’s credit rating has also greatly improved, and in 2006 a $160 million bond was obtained at an interest rate that was much lower than it would have been in previous years when the utility was in dire straits.     

The stipulated order will ultimately result in a long-range plan for the water and wastewater system, and it should be finalized in the next few months.  It is not clear exactly how this plan will affect the power system, although there was mention yesterday of providing assistance in the form of information exchanges, grants, and technical expertise to help the CNMI also develop a long-range plan for energy security.   

If the initiatives proposed by Rep. Hofschneider pass (House Legislative Initiatives 16-5 and 16-6), the CNMI will be able to avail itself of the funding that is desperately needed to overhaul our utility system.  But that funding must be accompanied by a plan, and it must be a plan that all the leaders of the CNMI will agree to honor.  Without a plan, and without a commitment to honor that plan and not exercise adverse political interference in the implementation of that plan (in other words, we must allow competent people to do their jobs), we would be squandering an opportunity that may never come again.       

ON THE LEGISLATIVE BUREAU

The fight between the House and the Senate over who should be the next Legislative Bureau director helped bring to light some serious and deeply-rooted problems in the bureau.  The first has been discussed quite publicly and extensively, and that is nepotism.  I agree with the House leadership’s position that the Senate’s choice for Legislative Bureau director would be highly unethical and improper.   

The second problem has hardly been discussed at all – and that is, there is no legitimate process for selecting a qualified and competent Legislative Bureau Director.  There are essentially no required qualifications, no formal evaluation of candidates, and no formal process for selecting and hiring the best candidate for the job.  This year, the position was not even announced.  Four applicants expressed interest, but the Senate apparently did not even know that.  I have no idea if formal interviews were conducted, or if resumes were even submitted. 

Senator Pangelinan touched on this problem in her memo to the legislators, when she noted that the Legislative Bureau is far more political than it should be, and especially in the selection of the Legislative Bureau director, which changes every time the leadership changes.  The Legislative Bureau is likelier to be the nonpartisan, independent body that it was intended to be if there were formal, legitimate processes in place for selecting the Director.  Senator Pangelinan presented five options but she did not include the one option that would have been most obvious to me: to audit the position of director, come up with a better position description that includes minimum qualifications, announce the position, and develop a formalized process for selecting and hiring the best candidate for the job.  

Much depends on the Legislative Bureau director – the maintenance of legislative records, the quality of professional services provided to legislators, the morale and productivity of the staff, the maintenance of office grounds, capital equipment, supplies, and vehicles, proper procurement and inventory management, standard operating procedures for the office, personnel management policies, etc.  We should not take this position lightly, and the recent deadlock between the houses has presented us with an opportunity to improve, formalize, and legitimize the way the director is selected, and thereby improve the services of the Legislative Bureau in the long run.   

ON THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

In an email I sent out the other day, I touched on my concerns about the process in which the Legislature prioritizes, drafts, discusses, and adopts legislative action.  I plan to write more about this issue shortly, but in a nutshell, I firmly believe we need to slow the legislative process down, and increase transparency in the Legislature.  Legislators should have the benefit of timely notice and adequate information so they can exercise due diligence in reviewing and acting on bills.  Citizens should have the same so they can be more informed about how they are being served by their elected officials, and so they can get involved in if they choose.   I have drafted proposed amendments to the rules that govern the House that would help slow down the legislative process and encourage all of us legislators to be more careful, deliberative, and responsible when taking any action.  I am also working on legislation to update, clarify, and strengthen the Open Government Act, and apply it to the Legislature.  If anyone would like to assist in drafting and/or reviewing and commenting on these amendments, they can contact me at 664-8931 or 483-3935, or email me at tinasablan@gmail.com .  I would welcome the help.

Attached is the amended agenda, received this morning, for today’s House session, scheduled for 1:30pm in the House Chamber.  Two bills have been added, as well as communications from the Governor’s office, and communications from Departments and Agencies. 
 
Also, per the request of numerous citizens, I am attaching the directory of contact numbers for all House and Senate members, and the Legislative Bureau staff.  Official email addresses will also be sent shortly.    

 CLICK HERE FOR THE AMENDED AGENDA

CLICK HERE FOR THE HOUSE AND SENATE CONTACT INFORMATION

In recent days, I have been receiving questions from concerned citizens regarding my qualifications to run for public office, particularly with respect to residency requirements. I have prepared here a summary of the requirements for House of Representatives candidates under CNMI law, and an explanation of how I meet those requirements, with references to documents that verify my eligibility.

Under Article II, Section 3(c) of the CNMI Constitution, “A representative shall be qualified to vote in the Commonwealth, at least 21 years of age, and a resident and domiciliary of the Commonwealth for at least three years immediately preceding the date on which the representative takes office.” Article II, Section 3(d) also requires that a candidate “shall be a registered voter of the election precinct where he or she is a candidate.” The CNMI Constitution may be accessed online at www.cnmilaw.org/constitution.htm and at the Joeten-Kiyu Public Library.

Commonwealth election law used to require that candidates be residents of their precincts for at least two years immediately preceding the date of the election. The two-year precinct residency requirement, however, was removed in 2005 by Public Law 14-87. Today, our election law requires that a candidate for the House of Representatives simply be: 1) qualified to vote in the Commonwealth; 2) at least 21 years of age; 3) a resident and domiciliary of the Commonwealth for at least three years immediately preceding the date on which s/he takes office; and 4) a registered voter and resident of the precinct in which s/he is a candidate. The Northern Mariana Islands Election Reform Act of 2000 (PL 12-18), and Public Law 14-87, which amends it, can both be accessed at www.cnmilaw.org . The Commonwealth Election Commission can also provide more information on CNMI election law, and can be reached at 664-VOTE.

Am I qualified to vote in the Commonwealth?

YES. I have been a registered voter in the Commonwealth since I turned 18. Public documents relating to my voter registration history can be found at the Commonwealth Election Commission.

Am I at least 21 years of age?

YES. I am 26. Public documents related to my age include my birth certificate, driver’s license, and passport.

Have I been a resident and domiciliary of the Commonwealth for at least three years immediately preceding the date on which I will take office?

YES. I was born and raised in the CNMI, and left the islands at the age of 18 to attend college between the fall of 1999 and the fall of 2003. I returned to the CNMI in June 2004 after I had saved up enough money to buy a ticket home. My employment with the Division of Environmental Quality began shortly after my return. Public documents related to my residency in the CNMI include my birth certificate, voter registration history, and memoranda of agreement that I signed with the CNMI Scholarship Office indicating my commitment to return home upon the completion of my college education. The Division of Environmental Quality can verify my employment history; the number for that office is 664-8500.

Am I a registered voter and resident of the precinct in which I ran for office?

YES. I am a registered voter of Precinct 1, and I live in Fina Sisu. I have lived in this village since August 1, 2007, the date that I signed my lease for the house in which I currently reside. I filed my candidacy papers on August 6, and was certified as a candidate on August 24.

One source of confusion for some citizens seems to be a letter to the editor that I wrote which was published in the Marianas Variety on October 4, 2007. Below my name, the Variety indicated that I still resided in Navy Hill. By that time, I had not lived in Navy Hill for nearly two years, and had been living in Fina Sisu for over two months. On the same day the letter was published, I notified the Variety editor of the error and requested a correction. Letters thereafter indicated my correct residence. I still have a copy of the email I sent to the Variety editor if anyone would like to review it.

Finally, some have asked me why I switched precincts “at the last minute.” Suggestions have been made that it was a political maneuver on my part – though to what end, I am not entirely clear. Moving to Precinct 1 did not give me any special advantage in the election. It was probably more of a disadvantage for me to run in the most crowded election race on the island, in a precinct in which I had never lived before.

The reason I “switched precincts” is quite simple. I am a renter. Prior to renting a house in Fina Sisu, I was renting a house in Garapan. Prior to renting that house in Garapan, I was renting a studio in Navy Hill. Prior to that, I was off-island attending college, also renting apartments. Prior to that, I was still in high school living with my parents in Tanapag, the village where I was born and raised.

I decided to move to Fina Sisu because I could no longer afford the rent for the house in Garapan. In the middle of my move, I began to consider running for office. Before deciding to run for office, I read both the CNMI Constitution and the election laws, and checked with the Commonwealth Election Commission to make sure that I met and understood the residency requirements for House of Representatives candidates.

My decision to run for public office was admittedly a rather last-minute decision. My decision to move out of Garapan was not. It was something I had been considering for months, and I decided to move when I finally found a more affordable place to live in Fina Sisu.

Although my rental agreements these past three and a half years are private, not public documents, and therefore not subject to the Open Government Act, I have no problem showing them to anyone who would like to see them. I am also happy to answer any other questions or concerns regarding my election qualifications, or any other issues for that matter. Please call me at 483-3935, or email me at tinasablan@gmail.com .

“We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.”
 – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dear people of the Commonwealth,
 
Today’s Unity March will be a peaceful and historic demonstration for everyone who cares about the future of the Commonwealth.   The march does not seek to create or sharpen divides in our community.  It will not attack any individuals, businesses, agencies, or ethnic groups.   It will not pit any cultural groups or nationalities against each other, or employees against employers, or the local government against the federal government, or U.S. citizens against noncitizens, or Chamorros and Carolinians against all other members of the community. 
 
A few individuals have suggested otherwise, and have attempted to undermine the spirit of the Unity March.  They speak from ignorance.  Their messages of intolerance should be challenged, of course, but they themselves should be treated with compassion: they may simply not have the capacity, the courage, or the moral fiber to understand that our Commonwealth can and should aspire to be something greater than what it is.   
 
A continued reliance on cheap and indefinitely “temporary” foreign labor without any pathway to greater security for the workers will only perpetuate the problems of low wages, abuse and corruption, limited opportunities for citizens and permanent residents in the private sector, and little incentive for young people to pursue higher education and vocational training and return to work here to practice their professions.   Arbitrary job classifications, artificial quotas, and an ever-changing, laxly-enforced immigration and labor program full of loopholes and contradictions help no one: not citizens, not permanent residents, not foreign national workers, and not businesses.   When our best and brightest people leave the Commonwealth for better opportunities, when businesses raise prices, cut hours, or shut down, when investors shy away, and when government is forced to enact massive layoffs because of the resulting drops in revenue – we all suffer.  
 
We can imagine a great Commonwealth.  We can imagine a thriving economy in which all honest work is fairly valued, wages keep pace with the cost of living, and our quality of life improves over time.    We can imagine a community in which people are motivated to seek out higher education and continually improve their skills in order to compete to the best of their ability for decent jobs.   We can imagine flourishing local businesses that compete for the best, most qualified employees they can find by offering higher wages and better working conditions.   We can imagine a government that looks after the welfare of all its people, and that recognizes the power of the free market, the necessity of transparency and accountability, and the fundamental importance of fair and reasonable laws and consistent enforcement. 
 
Now, I am aware that some have questioned the “appropriateness” of a representative-elect participating in the Unity March.   Some have accused me of forgetting my people, and particularly the people who voted for me in my precinct.  I have also been accused of betraying my Chamorro culture. 
 
Before I decided to run for office, and throughout my campaign, I consistently and vocally supported the extension of federal immigration law to the CNMI, and improved status for long-term foreign national residents.   I have also opposed the new local labor law.  I have taken these positions with the long-term interests of all people who live here in mind.   My participation in this march should therefore be a surprise to no one.  I will be marching with foreign national residents, permanent residents, other U.S. citizens, and business owners, all of whom live in my precinct, and in every precinct, and all of whom have a stake in the immigration and labor issues facing the Commonwealth.   And while not everyone joining the march will be people who can vote, they do live here, work and pay taxes, have children who are U.S. citizens, and contribute to the life and development of the community.   They also deserve to be represented.
 
As for the notion that I am somehow betraying my Chamorro culture by taking on these issues:  I was raised by a Chamorro grandmother, father, and numerous other relatives who taught me to respect others regardless of race, ethnicity, or nationality, to love all children, to care about the welfare of the entire community, and to be true to my convictions.   I was also raised by a non-Chamorro mother, and non-Chamorro uncles and aunties who basically taught me the same things.  I count Chamorros and non-Chamorros among my friends and family. 
 
To me, being Chamorro is not about tearing down people who are not Chamorro.  Intolerance is not a core Chamorro value. “Respect” for my culture does not mean I must disrespect other cultures.   And we do not regain or maintain our “dignity” by demeaning the inherent dignity of others.     
 
And just as importantly, “culture” is not a fixed and unchangeable thing.  Cultures are constantly changing, adapting to the times, and the ones that survive and prosper are usually the ones that manage to preserve the very best of their traditions while discarding those habits that hinder their advancement.   I would suggest that the habits of fear and intolerance are those aspects of “culture” in the Commonwealth that need to change, because they are crippling us all as a people, while the habits of respect and care for one another are the very best traditions that deserve to be upheld and enhanced because they will continue to propel us forward.  
 
The Unity March represents a vision for the Commonwealth that embraces all people who call our islands home, people who live, work, pay taxes, and raise their families here.   It is for all of us who love these islands, who wish to be part of the effort to rebuild the economy and to help improve the quality of life here for ourselves and our families.   It is for all of us who desire economic recovery through genuine immigration and labor reform and better governance.  It is for all of us who understand that the core values of humanity are respect for one another, and treating others as we would wish to be treated.   We are all called to embrace these values, regardless of ethnicity, nationality, religion, or occupation.
 
Now, more than ever, we need each other to stand together in mutual respect and cooperation, united by a common aspiration to realize a great future as a Commonwealth. 
 
The Unity March begins at 4:30pm today at Kilili Beach.  For more information, please contact me at tinasablan@gmail.com, or call me at 483-3935.
 
 
Tina Sablan

Dear people of the Commonwealth,

More and more we are beginning to realize that our declining economy, failing public services, and deteriorating social and natural environment stem from years of misgovernance: unstable policies, unaccountable leadership, weak law enforcement, a lack of transparency, and a culture of fear and complacency among our people.

Misgovernance is so profoundly ingrained in our community that some of us have difficulty imagining that the affairs of government can be conducted in any other way. But we must imagine a different way, and we must all be involved in realizing that vision Read the rest of this entry »

Many of us have received letters, pamphlets, emails, phone calls, and house visits from individuals urging us to vote “yes” on the Saipan Casino Act. We have watched interviews with the proponents on television, and listened to them on the radio. We have read their letters to the editor and their paid advertisements. The propaganda in favor of the Saipan Casino Act has been carefully crafted to target people’s sense of desperation, and to distract citizens as much as possible from reading and understanding the Saipan Casino Act itself.

How many of us have actually read the Saipan Casino Act in its entirety?

We have compiled here both a list of the misleading claims that have been made by Saipan Casino Act proponents, as well as a section-by-section analysis of the Saipan Casino Act to help voters understand the serious ramifications of this initiative.

We urge all Saipan voters, however, to make it a point to read and understand the entire Act before going to the polls on November 3. A copy of the Act is available at the Joeten Kiyu Public Library, and also online at the Election Commission website, www.votecnmi.gov.mp . We would also be happy to provide a hard copy of the initiative to anyone who requests one; please call 483-3935.

Regardless of our positions Read the rest of this entry »

We have set up this site in an effort to expand the dialogue on the many different issues that have been raised during the course of this campaign.  I have included both my notes on the concerns and ideas that have been shared with me by other citizens thus far, as well as Read the rest of this entry »