This is to announce that the House Standing Committee on Judiciary and Governmental Operations will be meeting tomorrow, Friday, April 18 @ 10am in the Speaker’s Conference Room. The following bills will be reviewed:
These bills are available online at www.cnmileg.gov.mp or at www.camachocnmi.com .
Also, because of the conflict with the JGO meeting, tomorrow’s weekly press conference has been moved to 9am in my office.
This is to announce that the House Standing Committee on Ways and Means has called for an emergency meeting with CUC at 2pm today in the House Chamber.
This is to announce the following:
I will also be announcing the first quarterly public forum on the State of the Legislature, scheduled for Tuesday, April 29 at the Multipurpose Center, beginning at 6pm.
This is to announce that there will be a 2nd Special Session of the House on Wednesday, April 16 @ 9:30am in the House Chamber. For the draft agenda click here.
The House Committee on Commerce and Tourism will be meeting on Monday, April 14 @ 1:30pm in the Speaker’s Conference Room. The following bills will be reviewed at that meeting:
The chair of the committee is Rep. Joseph Reyes. His office can be reached at 664-8836 for more information.
Also, kudos to the Legislative Bureau for getting the Legislature’s website up and running! Bills, resolutions, initiatives, and other records are available for viewing at www.cnmileg.gov.mp . The Floor Leader’s website also continues to post House bills and offer opportunity for public comment at www.camachocnmi.com .
There will be a House Ways and Means committee meeting today, Wednesday, April 9 at 10am in the Speaker’s Conference Room. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Board of Education’s recent decision to shut down operations of the Public School System. The Secretary of Finance and PSS Acting Finance Director Lori Grizzardo, are expected to attend.
Also the House Natural Resources Committee will be holding public hearings today, April 9, and tomorrow, April 10 on House Legislative Initiative 16-5, which proposes to amend the Constitution to allow the government to borrow money for operations. The hearing today will be at 6:30pm in the House Chamber; the hearing tomorrow will be at 6:30pm at the Multipurpose Center. Click here for the complete info.
Finally, community forums to explore the possibility of longer-term CNMI residence status for qualified foreign workers will be held this week and next week. The first forum will be tonight, April 9, starting at 6pm at the Kagman Community Center. The second forum will be tomorrow, April 10, starting at 6pm at San Vicente School. These forums are being sponsored by Taotao Tano and various long-term foreign worker groups. Public Hearing Notice Apr 2008
The House agenda changed again on the floor during the sessions this week. The following items were added:
HOUSE BILLS
HOUSE RESOLUTIONS
OTHER ACTION TAKEN
COMMENTS
On the resolutionsI formally introduced a resolution to amend the House Rules to require at least three business days’ notice for legislative meetings, including agendas, and the posting of legislative records on the Legislature’s website. Pursuant to the rules, I requested that the Speaker place the resolution on the calendar for action. The Floor Leader objected, and requested that instead the resolution be referred to the Ad Hoc Committee on the Rules, which he chairs, since the committee is accepting recommendations on the rules from other members. I stated for the record that I had submitted my recommendations to him weeks ago. There had been no action, nor had there been any report from the committee on the rules since the appointment of the members. The Speaker then decided initially that the resolution would be referred to the committee, and ordered that a report should come out within 30 days. The Floor Leader said he would do his best.
I later objected to the placement of other resolutions without referral to committees on the calendar. The Vice Speaker remarked that since my resolution was quite lengthy (a few pages) and pertained to the rules, it made sense to have the resolution referred to the committee which exists for reviewing rules. I responded that the other resolutions could also be referred to committees on the basis of that argument — the Health and Education committee exists for reviewing health-related legislation, and could take up the resolution recommending the participation of a foreign country in an international health conference; the Natural Resources Committee could take up the resolution that urged the Zoning Office to rezone one family’s lot. Eventually the Speaker ruled that the resolution I had introduced would be placed on calendar, as originally requested, although we would not act on the resolution that day.
I voted no on the resolution recommending
On the gambling bill, HB 16-82I voted no on the motion to place this bill on calendar without referring it to committee. The people of
Of course, at least one member noted that he was in favor of placing the bill on calendar because, the sooner we placed it, “the sooner we can kill it.” So that is another way to look at it, I suppose. On the austerity bill, HB 16-83House Bill 16-83 was still being frantically drafted as of Thursday morning, just before the session. I had seen earlier drafts of the bill and had been reviewing the most recent draft that I had the night before the session because I knew that it would be introduced soon. The bill that made it to the floor that morning was significantly different from the bill I had just been reading the night before, and included amendments that had been requested by the Senate, which I had not had a chance to see before the session.
It seemed to me that the majority of the members were anxious to rush the passage of the bill and stifle debate (at least half a dozen motions to end debate were made even while other members had their hands raised to comment and offer amendments). I objected to the motion to pass it on first and final reading and noted that we had not had a chance to properly review this bill that would seriously impact people’s lives and public services. I received no support for the request to withdraw the motion to pass on first and final reading, nor did I receive any support for my motion to go into committee of the whole to work intensively on the bill for as long as it takes to do our due diligence and offer and debate amendments to improve the bill. The members said that if I had amendments to offer, I should just do so on the floor, and I agreed.
The first and only amendment I was allowed to offer was one that would have terminated the vehicle leases, cell phone plans, and gasoline cards assigned to elected and appointed officials. Some members objected to the amendment and said that it would cause controversy and delay the passage of the bill. Others said that there was no place for such an amendment in the bill, and I asked if this was not in fact an austerity bill. At least one member said that the amendment would disrupt the ability of his office to operate effectively. The amendment went to a vote, and was defeated, 5-14. The members who voted in favor of the amendment were Reps Dave Apatang, Vic Hocog, Heinz Hofschneider,
At that point, there was another clamor of motions to end debate, the Floor Leader declared definitely that the debate was done, and I was not allowed to offer any more amendments. The bill passed on first and final reading by a vote of 15-4. The members who voted no included Reps Apatang, Hofschneider, Ralph Torres, and myself. The bill was passed by the Senate without amendment in another last-minute session the next day, and sent to the governor.
Other than my objection to the fact that the bill was obviously being rushed to passage, I also objected to the fundamental unfairness of passing an austerity bill that slashes employee salaries while exempting legislators, the governor, lieutenant governor, judges and justices, and also preserving some of the notorious excesses of government, including travel, wasteful power consumption, and the perks of public office (government-paid vehicles, gas cards, cell phones, etc.). Moreover, I objected to fact that the the austerity measures seem to be entirely geared towards protecting government payroll, rather than directing any savings we realize towards, say, a fuel subsidy that would benefit the entire community, or paying what we owe to the Retirement Fund, or temporary unemployment assistance for people who must be laid off.
It should be clear, by now, that we have no choice but to downsize. The first and obvious place we should start is not with across-the-board salary cuts that hurt the lowest-paid workers most of all, but with government fat — with the perks to which public officials have become accustomed and other forms of wastefulness that continue to this day. And then there should be a plan for truly streamlining government that includes gradual layoffs, unemployment assistance, and transitioning people into the private sector.
But it is difficult to make a push for such measures when rules are suspended and bills rushed to passage on first and final reading, the day they are introduced, without even the opportunity for public comment, as the austerity bill was, and when debate is stifled on the floor.
It seems to me that the austerity bill that we just passed was driven by fear — a fear of acting boldly and decisively, to do the right thing, however difficult it might be, to streamline government. Some of the members expressed anxiety about the governor possibly moving to impound funds given the growing fiscal crisis and the absence of a budget. They said they felt that this austerity bill, however imperfect it might be, was better than impoundment. But after the session on Thursday, I cannot help but wonder if impoundment might be the thing that would finally wake us up and force us to acknowledge the stark realities of our fiscal situation.
During and after the session, some members suggested that we work on separate legislation that would consider additional austerity measures, such as the ones that I would have proposed had I been given the chance, and a resolution expressing the commitment of legislators to cut our own salaries. I agreed.
As always, I am open for comments and suggestions. I can be reached at 483-3935, 664-8931, or at this email address.
This is to announce that the House session scheduled for Thursday, March 20 has been postponed until further notice due to Holy Week. The Senate session is still scheduled for today at 10am.
Also, the following meetings will be taking place today, Wednesday, March 19:
Finally, the usual Wednesday hour with the press will be held today at 10am in my office.
The House and the Senate will both be holding sessions tomorrow, Tuesday, March 18 @ 10am in their respective chambers.
There will be a House session today, Thursday, March 12 @ 2pm in the House Chamber. The call for session was sent out a couple of days ago, but a final agenda was not available until this morning. CLICK HERE for the Agenda.
Also, the following committees have scheduled meetings this week and next week thus far:
Saipan and Northern Islands Delegation, PUTC: Friday, March 14 @ 1pm, to begin developing a long-range energy plan for Saipan. Contact myself, Tina Sablan, at 664-8931, 483-3935, or tinasablan@gmail.com for more information.
House Commerce and Tourism: Wednesday, March 19 @ 1:30pm in the Speaker’s Conference Room, to review HB 16-12 (establishing a nonimmigrant entry permit category to attract “silver club” market); and HB 16-21 to amend 4 CMC Section 0204 to cap tax benefits of qualifying certificates
Finally, Rep. Hofschneider will be at the Sabalu Market this Saturday, from 6:30am-8:30am, with an informational display of the five initiatives that he has introduced, which pertain to the downsizing of the Legislature, amendments to Article XII, and a proposal to allow the government to borrow money for operations to address the CNMI’s power crisis. Copies of the initiatives will be made available to the public, and Rep. Hofschneider will also be conducting a survey to help assess public opinion on the proposals. His office can be reached at 664-8830 for more information.
On Monday, March 3, six months into Fiscal Year 2008, the House deliberated on both the House Concurrent Resolution, which identified the budget resources for the year, and the draft budget bill, House Bill 16-51. The Concurrent Resolution passed, 19-1, and so did the budget bill, 14-6. I voted no on both the resolution and the budget bill; the other five members who voted no on the budget bill included Rep. Heinz Hofschneider, Rep. Justo Quitugua, Rep. Rosemond Santos, Rep. Ed Salas, and Rep. Edwin Aldan.
I voted no on the Concurrent Resolution for two reasons. First, the Resolution was incomplete and not in compliance with the requirements of the Planning and Budgeting Act. The Act clearly states that both estimated resources and expenditures must be identified in the Concurrent Resolution; the Resolution that was passed on Monday only identified estimated resources. It was said that identifying the budget ceiling was the equivalent of identifying the expenditures, but I disagreed. We do not have to appropriate every penny of what we expect to earn – and in fact, it would be more fiscally responsible to appropriate less. In any case, the Act requires that we should at least indicate estimated expenditures as well, and we did not do that in the Concurrent Resolution.
Second, it was unclear whether or not the resources identified in the Resolution equaled the outlays established in the budget bill, which raised the question of whether or not the budget was even balanced. The Resolution did not take into account Compact-Impact funds in the estimate of available resources. However, the budget bill identified the use of those Compact-Impact funds in the outlays. The bill proposed to cut the budgets for certain critical agencies (the Department of Public Health, the Department of Public Safety, the Public School System, the Northern Marianas College, the Division of Youth Services, the Department of Correction, and the Public Defender) by hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of dollars, and to replenish those accounts through Compact-Impact funding.
I was concerned that the above-mentioned critical agencies would be severely shortchanged if, for whatever reason, the Governor chose not to replenish their accounts in the amounts identified in HB 16-51. Compact-Impact funds are considered grants to the government, and the Governor has authority to distribute those funds according to the terms of the grant agreement, and also to reprogram. It was not at all clear to me that there would be anything binding the Governor to follow the recommendations of the House for the distribution of these funds.
I voted no on the budget bill for several reasons, including my concerns about the funding for critical agencies, mentioned above. Related to that, I felt that essential public services had not been properly prioritized and adequately funded. It seemed to me that we should have ensured that at least the critical services received adequate funding, and that all remaining resources would be distributed to other agencies and programs in order of agreed-upon priorities. That did not happen – and, of course, it did not help that we did not have all the information that we needed from the Administration in order to make rational decisions about what agencies actually needed in order to operate.
Second, I voted no on the budget bill because it provided no relief measures whatsoever for the residents and businesses that have long been suffering under exorbitant power rates. The original draft of the bill had proposed to subsidize fuel through funds freed up by cutting government salaries (cuts of three percent, and then seven percent, had been proposed; I had favored a proportional cut). We knew that the CUC state of emergency that the governor had declared would be expiring soon, which meant that power rates would roll back to approximately 17 cents/kwh, in accordance with Public Law 15-94. We also knew that implementing PL 15-94 would mean that CUC would face a serious shortfall in the millions to pay for fuel if a subsidy were not identified soon to cover the true cost of power.
The provision to cut salaries in order to create a fuel subsidy was removed from the budget bill because some members deemed it unfair to government employees, but it was replaced with nothing to address the shortfall created by PL 15-94. I asked about this omission on the floor, and also asked if there would then be a move to repeal the law to allow CUC to charge for the full cost of power. Both the Speaker and Rep. Dave Apatang said that they were working on a repealer that would be prefiled later in the week. I was glad to hear that, but it has yet to happen.
I have always thought that it was a mistake to artificially lower the power rates through legislation, not only because funding was never identified to cover the shortfall, but also because of the effect that such political interventions have on CUC’s credit rating (which is admittedly shot anyway, but it does not need to be made worse). Moreover, in the event of a future privatization effort, government meddling in the corporation’s ability to recover costs would raise an enormous red flag for potential legitimate bidders.
The third reason I voted no on the budget bill was because of the effect that it would have on the Retirement Fund. The Fund has long been treated like a cash cow by past – and present – legislators. The government’s abysmally low financial performance rating stems largely from debts owed to the Fund. Actuarial studies have indicated that the government’s contribution to the Retirement Fund should be approximately 36%. The 15th legislature passed a law that required only an 18% contribution, which is less than ideal, but at least still more than the Governor’s proposal of 11%. The 16th House, however, proposed to allow the government to reduce contributions to the Retirement Fund by any amount in which appropriations authorized under the budget Act exceeded available funding for the fiscal year. It was stated on the floor that this would allow the government to withhold payments to the Retirement Fund in order to avoid painful personnel cuts. If the Fund itself came up against any cash shortfall, the budget bill would allow the Fund’s Trustees to draw upon investment earnings and liquidate assets.
Some members were uncomfortable with this provision and began to brainstorm amendments that ultimately did not make it into the bill. These members said that they would attempt to make these amendments through separate legislation. Until that happens, however, hemorrhaging of the Retirement Fund will continue.
The fourth reason I voted no on the budget bill was because we did not have a remotely clear picture of the impact that this budget would have on government services and on people’s lives. In addition to the earmarks that the Governor had proposed to suspend in his budget, the House sought to suspend the Tobacco Control Fund, the Solid Waste Revolving Fund, and the Deportation Fund, and it was not clear to me what effects these suspensions would have on critical programs dependent on those funds, such as those related to public health, the operations of the landfill, and vocational training.
Moreover, the budget bill did not take into account actual expenditures made by the government to date, which means that it is quite likely that some agencies have already overspent, and will have to make further cuts in personnel and operations in the remaining six months of the fiscal year in order to live within their means. If public services are threatened as a result, we have no idea how, and if more people will have to be let go, we have no idea who, or how many, or from which agencies, or when. It is clear, however, that as a result of this budget, at least 397 people will be out of a job by the end of March, and more are likely to follow in the remaining months of the fiscal year.
Finally, I voted no on the budget bill because I did not feel that it was ready to be passed to the Senate on First and Final Reading. Under the House Rules, any bill that is amended more than twice on the floor should be sent back to committee, the assumption being that it is clearly not ready for passage. However, the rules were suspended and about half a dozen amendments were made on the floor to address errors in the bill, some technical and some rather substantial. The passage of at least two other pieces of legislation (the repeal of PL 15-94, and another one related to Retirement Fund contributions, both previously mentioned) would also be required in order address significant problems identified in the budget bill. Although commitments were made on the floor to introduce bills related to both those subjects, there is no guarantee that those bills would actually be enacted, or how soon. Quite a few members voted “yes, with reservations” to the bill for that reason, and trusted that their concerns would be addressed in future legislation. I personally felt that it would be better to vote no and send the bill back to the committee and address the other concerns first, than to vote yes to a bill that is seriously flawed in its present form.
I could not, in good conscience, endorse a budget that I am convinced is not balanced, that does not clearly prioritize essential services, that lacks any relief measures to address the power crisis, and for which I have no clear understanding of what the full impacts would be. Moreover, I certainly could not endorse any bill with that many problems on First and Final Reading.
I have been asked a number of times if this budget is “better” than no budget. An irresponsible budget is as bad as no budget. It is my hope that the Senate will scrutinize this bill with extreme care, and improve upon the budget that the House has just handed them. Perhaps then the two chambers will finally work jointly – as we should have been doing from the beginning — to pass a more acceptable budget.
Looking ahead now to Fiscal Year 2009: we will have learned some very hard lessons from this 2008 budget, and I hope we do not repeat history with the next budget. The deadline for the 2009 budget proposal from the Governor is fast approaching — April 1. We should hold him to that, and hold ourselves to a much higher standard of fiscal responsibility with the 2009 budget than we have demonstrated with the budget for 2008.
The Senate will be holding a session Friday at 10am in the Senate Chamber. Click here for the Agenda.
Also, the House Judiciary and Governmental Operations Committee will be meeting on Monday, March 10 at 10:00am in the Speaker’s Conference Room. The following bills and initiatives have been referred to this committee, and will be discussed at the meeting, along with comments that have been submitted thus far:
HOUSE BILLS
HOUSE LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
The chair of the Judiciary and Governmental Operations Committee is Rep. Rosemond Santos. Her office may be reached at 664-8965 for more information, or to submit comments.
CLICK HERE the agenda for the House session scheduled for today, March 3 @ 10am in the House Chamber.
This is to announce that the House session, which began on Friday at 9:30am and recessed at noon, will resume on Monday, March 3 at 10am in the House Chamber.
The agenda for Friday’s House session (attached) was amended again on the floor. The following items were added:
HOUSE BILLS
HOUSE LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
HOUSE STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
ACTION TAKEN
After the session, House members were invited to receive a presentation from Mr. Steven Potts of the USDA Graduate School, titled, “Does Fiduciary Irresponsibility Foil Economic Development?” It was an excellent, as well as sobering, presentation, and our thanks to the Department of Interior, the USDA Graduate School, and the Office of the Public Auditor for coordinating the event.
Mr. Potts proposed that both economic opportunity and fiduciary responsibility are necessary conditions for economic development. A fiduciary duty is the highest standard of care imposed at either equity or law, and government is the ultimate fiduciary in democracies. Fiduciary irresponsibility includes corruption (i.e., bribes), unethical conduct (i.e., nepotism and steering contract source selection), financial irresponsibility (i.e., consistently spending more than we earn, failing to tie government budgets to results, inconsistent taxation practices, waste of public assets and resources), lack of accountability, failure to enforce, and failure to inform the public.
Mr. Potts distinguished between “rational investors,” who invest for the long-term and require economic opportunity, foreseeable outcomes, and manageable risk, and “skimmers,” the short-term investors who take advantage of niche markets and opportunities to make a quick profit and then leave. Rational investors do not invest for charitable or humanitarian reasons, nor do they accept unpredictable risks. They also do not trust irresponsible governments, and seek out instead responsible, ethical governments that spend within their means, tie budgets to results, have reasonable and predictable tax burdens, limit waste and abuse, hold officials accountable, enforce the laws, and inform the public.
Mr. Potts’ presentation followed another presentation, also provided by the USDA Graduate School and given earlier this week by Mr. Frank Crawford on the CNMI’s Performeter Rating — that is the rating of our financial health and performance on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest score, and based on data provided by our financial audits. The CNMI scored just slightly above a 2.
I am hopeful that we will get to the budget on Monday — and that we will pass a responsible one, at that.
Due to a medical emergency, the House session that was scheduled for today, Thursday, Feb. 28 @ 9am, has been moved to Friday, February 29 @ 9:30am in the House Chamber.
Click Here for the agenda for tomorrow’s House session, scheduled for 9am in the House Chamber.
Also — in an earlier email I had mistakenly stated that the Senate is meeting for a session tomorrow. It’s actually meeting next week, March 6, at 10am. My apologies for the error.
Just an update:
In addition to budget hearings on Tuesday, February 26 at 2pm in the Senate Chamber, the Senate Committee on Fiscal Affairs has scheduled budget hearings with the Secretary of Finance, the Public Auditor, the Office of Management and Budget director, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of Revenue and Tax on Tuesday, February 26, at 10am, also in the Senate Chamber.
Also, kudos to the Speaker of the House for recently releasing a weekly schedule for regular committee meetings; that schedule is attached in this email. Wednesdays are left open for regular House sessions. Committees may meet on Wednesday if no session is scheduled.
The following legislative committees will be meeting this week:
Also, both the House and Senate will be conducting sessions in their respective chambers this Thursday, February 28. The House will be convening at 9am in the House Chamber; the Senate will meet at 10am. Agendas will be sent out shortly.
As a reminder, while we continue to hope that a fully functional and updated official website for the Legislature will be up and running soon — all introduced bills of the 16th Legislature are available at the House Floor Leader Joseph Camacho’s website, www.camachocnmi.com and all email announcements that I have sent out thus far are available at www.tinasablan.com/forum .
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:
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
Bad Behavior has blocked 106 access attempts in the last 7 days.
