Letter to the editor: About the Kumho / CRISOSTOMO

Friday November 30, 2007

I STRONGLY believe that before the Kumho Asiana lease takes place that our people be given an opportunity to be heard and have an understanding of any conditions in place that may be to their detriment or benefit.
Today, we ask ourselves as leaders, whether we have fulfilled the sentiments of over 5,000 or more residents seeking homestead lots as we venture into this public lease for Kumho Asiana or any other corporation for that matter. There are abundance of private properties today available for lease that have not been tabled which should be the priority of these lessees prior to availing with the public lands. Now, before us is Kumho Asiana proposal to lease Laolao Golf Course as it had already acquired the remaining assignment of the leasehold by UMDA and is now attempting to get a new 40 year lease term. However, the validity of this assignment of lease is to my opinion based on the law under Article XI Section 5(B)which states “the corporation may not transfer a leasehold interest in public lands for 25 years including renewal rights.”
Therefore, the term of this lease agreement has not expired and has not been terminated, so isn’t it illegal to transact a new lease when the lease has not been completed?
Unfortunately, the new 40-year lease term that is being sought by Kumho Asiana is questionable to me at this time because the lease’s original terms and conditions have yet to be fulfill. How then can I, as a senator for Saipan and Northern Islands, approve an undertaking of this lease agreement when the initial lease agreement was not accomplished.
I have nothing against Kumho Asiana but the public needs to be informed and a public hearing has to take place so that the community can be heard. A lot of empty promises have happened in the past and to approve something of this magnitude will be a disservice to our people. To top it off, with all due respect to Kumho Asiana I strongly believe that the proposed lease amount at $10,000 per month or $333 per day is an unreasonable lease amount to say the least.
Just imagine on average there are about 50 players per day at the golf resort at $140 per player which roughly generates $7,000 per day or $2.5 million per year. Now I ask Kumho is the commonwealth really getting a “fair” deal for such a transaction at $120,000 per year?
This projection doesn’t even take into account membership fee and others.
My dear people of the commonwealth, this $120,000 per year lease that is being proposed by Kumho Asiana is unrealistic. I do not believe that the CNMI government is getting a good return for its asset and I don’t think that this amount of revenue that will be generated will impact the CNMI’s financial posture. This is peanuts!
Yes, we are in a financial problems at this time, but we must be mindful that we have fiduciary responsibility to make sure that we do get the best return for our islands and not sell it out — out of desperation. For me personally, I feel this lease is an injustice to the people of the commonwealth particularly our children seeking homestead lots.
Therefore, all homestead applicants who are out there and have yet to receive their lots I urge them to come to the legislative hall and express themselves. We may be desperate but not this desperate! We should wait for the right time because I believe that there will be greater opportunities forthcoming and as the governor has stated, “it’s only a matter of time for better times.”
SEN. LUIS P. CRISOSTIMO
15th CNMI Legislature

APPRECIATION FROM Rep. Taman

mv-Friday November 16, 2007

Letter to the Editor: Biba Taotao Tano!

GREETINGS to you Mr. Greg Cruz and the members of the Taotao Tano Association. Let me extend my utmost respect and appreciation to you and your fellow members for your passion, conviction and determination to fight for the well-being of our indigenous people. Your effort is a worthy cause that will never go unnoticed. You represent the voice of our people and you guys ought to be commended.
I received a copy of your letter dated Nov. 13 addressed to Rep. Arnold I. Palacios, our minority leader. Your concerns are well noted. But please allow me to make several points.
You claimed in some of your news articles in the past that many of our people are leaving the islands because of the lack of economic opportunities and the exorbitant cost of utilities in particular. I want you to know that we are very much cognizant of this matter and that we wholeheartedly agree with you. The minority bloc constantly sit down brainstorming and even asking our souls for guidance and direction to find some solution to this dilemma.
Mr. Cruz, the soaring cost of fossil fuel is global in nature and is beyond our control. Our inability to generate much needed revenue is dictated by the closure of some garment factories and the deteriorating condition of our tourism industry. This is just to name a few. The issue at hand is much too complex which requires understanding, harmony and compassion between our government, private sector and the community.
Because of the lack of revenue infused into our coffers, we have to search for some relief measures to prevent our people from continuing to leave the island.
Let me bring you back to Nov. 24, 2006 when we in the minority bloc introduced House Bill 15-193 which was passed by the House. The Senate subsequently killed the bill. This was one of the relief measures we have designed. I believe the Taotao Tano Association had not come into being when this bill was first introduced and passed by the House.
But because of the need for relief in our suffering community, on April 4, 2007, the minority reintroduced the same bill in the form of House Bill 15-246. This time, both houses felt the measure was necessary, and both eventually passed it. The governor vetoed the bill but was subsequently overrode by the Legislature.
Mr. Cruz, I want you to know that our decision to override the veto is based solely on our determination to provide relief to our suffering community. It was not done because of the election or because we are riding on the Taotao Tano bandwagon as you claimed. It was done because we profoundly believed that it was the right thing to do. Yes, when we overrode the veto, we promised to find other source of funding for CUC shortfall. Please note that the minority recently introduced House Bill 15-318. This is an appropriation of $6 million introduced by Rep. Joseph Guerrero to subsidize and hopefully replenish some of CUC short fall. This is just one of the few relief measures we are undertaking.
Mr. Cruz, I want you to know that these economic uncertainties we are faced with require a comprehensive and unified direction from all parties concerned. Please bear with us while we search our souls to find the most sound, workable and beneficial solutions to our problems. We can’t perform miracles, but we can try if you work with us.
With all due respect, please do not be obsessed with the word TRANSPARENCY because we have nothing to hide here. Incidentally, the more you use this word the more you contribute to the glory of those disrespectful outsiders who are very critical of our islands, our people and our government. Mr. Cruz, I humbly invite you to please work with us and not against us. Come sit and share with us your ideas so that together we can start healing this painful episode in our history.
In closing, I would like to commend you and the association for the determination to fight for what you believe is right for our Taotao Tano in general. Keep up the good work. God bless you all and God bless the CNMI.
REP. CANDIDO B. TAMAN
15th House of Representatives

RESPONSE FROM: Rep. Taman on HB15-246 / PL 15-94.

mv-Friday November 23, 2007

Letter to the editor: Taotao Tano, H.B. 15-246 and P.L. 15-94

I KNOW I have some explaining to do here, but I am an elected public servant and part of my elected duty is to ensure that I provide such accurate information and I can when going public with my opinions.
First, I am trained to listen, and I accept criticisms as a public servant, and I will engage in any retaliatory mode of public criticism because I know that if I make mistakes, I will humbly accept responsibility and try to correct them. However, I will react and respond to any unreasonable, unjustifiable and unfair accusations, in order to enlighten the truth of the matter and not contribute to misinformation and confusion in the community.
Therefore, let’s clear the record here so the people can get the benefit of accurate public information in order to make some good judgments.
Let me take you, Mr. Guru Cruz, back to Oct. 3, 2007, when you and members of the Taotao Tano were sitting in the House gallery anxiously waiting for us to override the governor’s veto of House Bill 15-246. Like you stated in one of your news articles, when you claimed that it was the Taotao Tano’s insistence that the Legislature overrode the governor’s veto, yes, we all were united on this issue and wanted the override because we all felt it was necessary for the people.
Let me also remind you in case you have forgotten that the House unanimously voted for the override with 16 voted yes and 2 members absent. The Senate then overrode the same veto on Oct. 4, 2007 in Rota with 8 members voting yes and one member absent. Of the 27 members of both houses in the 15th Legislature, 24 voted for the override, and this override included your voice for the people, many CNMI residents, and the rest of the Taotao Tano. If what you said is true that your association represents the voice of the people, then this is a testimony that this override was necessary and was the right thing to do for the people. Please try to keep yourself focused on what and how things transpired, and then decide where you stand. You can’t be in two places at one time.
Furthermore, please note that the current proposed increase in the electric rate by the governor, is the emergency regulation proposed to be implemented by the “Customers Using Candles,” also known as CUC. The governor did not invoke his emergency power like you claimed in your letter. But even so, this proposed emergency regulation is still in violation of Public Law 15-94. But of course, with all the legal scientists in the governor’s office, he will still disagree with us. Then he will continue to publicly profess that he is very much willing to work with the Legislature, like Charles continues to repeat himself. This will be a good definition of your favorite word, DECEPTION.
Mr. Cruz, I firmly believe that the best possible way that we in this poor CNMI can solve some of our problems and move forward toward economic recovery is when we have peace among ourselves and work together in unity and harmony. I want you to know that the newly elected Republicans are trying to do just that. We have a consensus that the hard working Minority Leader Rep. Arnold I. Palacios will be our next speaker for the 16th Legislature. Even the Honorable Rep. Stanley Torres happily consented to this choice. So please try not to disrupt this peaceful process. Please try not to single out people in your praises or accusations because I believe we’re all in this together whether you like or not.
By the way, I wonder why are you guys so obsessed with only the Legislature? Don’t you think everyone is equally responsible in the quest to find solutions to our problems? You are beginning to sound like T.H. & A. the other three Goros, duh. Please quit contributing to the glory of, you know who.
Greg, I don’t know if you realize that you have tremendous leadership potential. You probably won’t believe it but people are talking all over the island about how much potential you have. But they strongly recommended that you learn the Art of Listening to more realistic advice so that you may nourish and nurture your potentials. Try to be more discrete and prudent in your choice of words. You will begin to realize that you are more mature and diplomatic, and by the time the year 2009 kicks in, then you’re good to go. Don’t forget that you are a public figure. See you later. Oops, don’t forget to take the P.I.O. with you.
REP. CANDIDO B. TAMAN
Capital Hill, Saipan

EXECUTIVE get pay raises, while 400 face layoffs

mv 111307

Executives get pay raises, while 400 face layoffs
LOOKS like Mr. Oscar Babauta, one of the lawmakers who refused to take a 10 percent paycut, is trying to make the CNMI government more broke than it already is. While 400-1,000 government employees face the possibility of getting laid off around December, he is trying to give pay raises to the already highly paid department heads. I believe he thinks that he is Santa Clause and is starting off the holiday season early. Babauta’s bill intends to restore the salary caps to pre-2007 levels. It also seeks to increase the salary ceilings for attorney general to $80,000, and for the secretary of Public Health to $70,000, or $100,000 if the secretary holds a doctor’s degree. The public auditor may receive up to $100,000 a year, and the public defender $70,000. Notwithstanding the caps, a department secretary or activity head who holds a doctor’s degree, an MBA degree, or is a U.S. certified public accountant may get up to $80,000 a year. Despite th e $45,000 cap for their category, the special assistants for administration and for budget and management may get $54,000. The same cap will apply to the senior policy adviser. Legal counsels to the governor and lt. governor may get an annual salary of $70,000. Leche boy, if you feel like giving so much then use your own money. Don’t use the people’s money. Why don’t you concentrate on saving the jobs of those who are facing layoffs instead. Oscar, it is people like you who contribute to the destruction of our economy. It is just sad that the people of Precinct 2 want to get this guy into office again. Some people just never learn.
JEFF FLORE

Torres: Pay hike bill ‘dead on arrival’

111407 Moneth G. Deposa Variety News Staff

REPRESENTATIVE Stanley T. Torres said yesterday that the bill which would allow executive branch officials to get higher salaries is “dead on arrival.” Introduced by Speaker Oscar M. Babauta on Nov. 8, House Bill 15-323 proposes to restore to 1998-2006 levels the salary ceilings for certain officials — despite the government’s worsening financial condition.“It’s dead on arrival,” Torres said, adding that the minority bloc and non-Covenant Party members of the House will not support the bill. Babauta’s bill will increase the salary ceilings for the attorney general to $80,000, and for the secretary of Public Health to $70,000, or $100,000 if the secretary holds a doctor’s degree. Torres, R-Saipan, said Babauta, Covenant-Saipan, introduced a similar bill on Aug. 31.“That bill made it to the first reading by voice vote where it was placed on the calendar but was later ignored and never voted on,” Torres said. He said the new bill has specific figures for certain government positions.“This is the second attempt and I don’t think it will get attention or much support from any of the House members,” Torres said. “Most members will vote it down because why would we make such salary increases and adjustments when many of our people are crying for help? Why is there a need to do these high-salaried people a favor and ignore low-income people?” he said. Torres noted that last week, the administration notified about 400 government employees about the termination of their service contracts on Dec. 22.“With all this happening in our government, what was in the speaker’s mind when he introduced that bill again? It’s very bad judgment to come out with that idea of giving a raise to the secretaries and directors when the low-income earners cannot even pay their utility bills,” Torres said. Babauta’s bill benefits department heads, deputy department heads, resident department heads, and division chiefs or special assistants. Under the Government Compensation Act passed in 1991, the maximum salary for department heads was $54,000, for deputy department heads, $42,000, for resident department heads, $36,000, and for division chiefs or special assistants, $40,800. Between Oct 1, 1998 and Oct. 1, 2006, annual salary ceilings were applied to raise the pay of deputy department heads to $50,000, the resident department heads to $45,000 and the division chiefs or special assistants to $45,000. However, the fiscal year 2007 budget did not include such funding provisions. As a result, the salary ceilings for the officials reverted to the 1991 levels for the first time in eight years. Under the bill, the public auditor may also receive up to $100,000 a year, and the public defender, $70,000. A department secretary or activity head who holds a doctor’s degree, an MBA, or is a U.S. certified public accountant may get up to $80,000 a year.

Bill raises pay for govt executives

Local ST-Monday, November 12, 2007 By Agnes E. DonatoReporter

Government executives will get a pay increase under a bill now before the Legislature.

House Speaker Oscar M. Babauta has introduced legislation that would restore to 1998-2006 levels the salary ceilings for certain appointed officials and raise the salaries of the Public Health secretary and the attorney general.

Babauta said the salary caps must be updated “in order to attract and retain qualified and dedicated managers to serve the needs of the Commonwealth.”If enacted, the bill would benefit department heads, deputy department heads, resident department heads, and division chiefs or special assistants. The bill would apply to salaries paid beginning Oct. 1, 2006. Under the government compensation act passed in 1991, maximum salaries were set for department heads ($54,000 or $48,000), deputy department heads ($42,000), resident department heads ($36,000), and division chiefs or special assistants ($40,800).

Between Oct 1, 1998 and Oct. 1, 2006, annual salary ceilings were applied to equalize the department heads ($54,000), and raise the pay of deputy department heads ($50,000), resident department heads ($45,000), and division chiefs or special assistants ($45,000).

The increase were set forth in appropriation acts during the period.However, the FY2007 budget did not include similar provisions. As a result, the salary ceilings for such officials reverted to 1991 levels for the first time in eight years.

Babauta’s bill intends to restore the salary caps to pre-2007 levels. It also seeks to increase the salary ceilings for attorney general to $80,000, and for the secretary of Public Health to $70,000, or $100,000 if the secretary holds a doctor’s degree.

The public auditor may receive up to $100,000 a year, and the public defender $70,000. Notwithstanding the caps, a department secretary or activity head who holds a doctor’s degree, an MBA degree, or is a U.S. certified public accountant may get up to $80,000 a year. Despite the $45,000 cap for their category, the special assistants for administration and for budget and management may get $54,000. The same cap will apply to the senior policy adviser. Legal counsels to the governor and lt. governor may get an annual salary of $70,000. Babauta said that the government could save on personnel turnover costs by providing attractive salaries to managers and policy makers.