.

.

.

.

.

.

protest infront of the governor's office

protest infront of the governor's office

THE GOVERNOR RAN AWAY FR THE BACK DOOR.

THE GOVERNOR RAN AWAY FR THE BACK DOOR.

HEADLINE!

STRIBUNE

_____________________________________________

Group holds rally, dares Fitial to talk to them
By Agnes E. DonatoReporter


The community group Taotao Tano held a rally outside the administration building yesterday to demand the resignation of Gov. Benigno R. Fitial and all of his appointees.About 15 Taotao Tano members, their children in tow, stood for four hours in front of the Governor's Office, shouting calls for the governor to step down, or at least to come out and speak to them. Fitial and his police escorts reportedly left the building through the back door without addressing the small crowd.“It's very disappointing he had to get four police officers to escort him. We are not a radical group; we even came with kids. We just wanted to talk to him about the CUC [Commonwealth Utilities Corp.] contracts,” said Taotao Tano leader Gregorio Cruz.Taotao Tano has questioned CUC's $5.1 million contract with the Guam-based DCM Group for the repair of Saipan's Power Plant I, and the $885,000 contract with the Commonwealth Industrial Supply Co. Inc. for the repair of Power Plant II. Both companies have failed to complete their work on schedule. The continuing repair at the power plants has prompted CUC to hire the U.K.-based Aggreko International to provide temporary power to Saipan at a cost of $6 million.“Where is the rehabilitation that was supposed to take place? What is the administration going to do with those contracts? Are we going to continue spending money to repair something that should have fixed already?” Cruz asked.“If these officials can't do their job, they don't belong in office. They should step down,” he added.The Saipan Tribune tried to get comments from CUC executive director Tony Muna, but he has not responded at press time. Muna has called the DCM contract “a mistake.” He has also reported that CISCO's work, which was supposed to have been completed in 2006, has been put on hold.It is not clear what CUC's next step will be on DCM or CISCO.Press secretary Charles P. Reyes Jr. Reyes said he knew little about the March 2006 contract with CISCO, which had been given 120 days to fix Power Plant II. But he played down the contractors' faults.“Maybe the engines are in a worse state than they expected. Those engines had been neglected for many years. Unfortunately, the mistakes of the past are coming back to haunt us. We're just trying to deal with the bad circumstances,” he said.Reyes also called Taotao Tano's rally “a publicity stunt.”“They're exercising their right to free speech. That's all right as long as they do it peacefully and they are not disturbing the peace,” he said.

MVARIETY

_____________________________________________

Reyes: Governor’s office not affected by protest Tuesday, 08 July 2008 00:00 By Junhan B. Todeno - Variety News Staff

THE leader of Taotao Tano does not “represent the indigenous people” and his protest action that demanded the resignation of Gov. Benigno R. Fitial is “unreasonable,” Press Secretary Charles P. Reyes Jr. said yesterday. A Taotao Tano member holds a placard critical of the administration during their rally outside the governor’s office yesterday. Photo by Mark PeñarandaThe Office of the Governor is “not affected” by the rally spearheaded by Greg Cruz. “We will continue to work,” Reyes said, adding that they have no time to have a dialogue with Cruz. “We talked with him before and we gave him an opportunity to be heard,” Reyes said. “But he has become critical and unreasonable,” he added, when the Fitial administration did not give him a government job. Cruz, in a separate interview, said Reyes should stop acting “as if he is the governor — he only wants a show on island.” Reyes should prove that Taotao Tano does not represent the indigenous people of the CNMI, Cruz said. Their call for Fitial’s resignation is reasonable, he added, and Taotao Tano will continue its protest “until something happens.” Cruz and his group gathered outside the governor’s office on Capital Hill at 1:30 p.m. yesterday. The rally was supposed to start at 10 a.m. Cruz was with eight children, 12 teenagers and seven other adults. The group displayed their banner which stated: “We are all suffering. Fuel is a global issue but ismanagement, incompetence, sweetheart deals, under the table deals is not. If you guys cannot fix CUC step down.” They chanted protest slogans from time to time. The Reyes sisters — Tacia, 16, Estela, 19, and Angie, 18 — said their demand was reasonable “because we have suffered a lot.” Christopher Ayuyu, 33, who has been with Taotao Tano for a year now, said people are paying CUC’s debt and the price of fuel is more than the minimum wage. Aaron Arthur, 15, said the governor is not addressing the pressing problems of the islands. Another local group, the CNMI Descents for Self-Government and Indigenous Rights does not support Taotao Tano’s cause. Former Speaker Oscar C. Rasa, spokesman and adviser of the CNMI Descents, said they are only concerned about issues affecting the rights of the indigenous people. “We are not involved in one way or another with the demand for Fitial’s resignation,” Rasa told Variety, adding that their group now has 2,300 members. Reyes said Cruz enjoyed the support of the local people, but most of them have formed their own groups. “He is inconsistent,” Reyes said. “He might be supporting you in one day and next week attacking you — completely npredictable.” Taotao Tano’s demand for a complete revamp of the cabinet members is also unreasonable because some of those officials are performing well and have nothing to do with Cruz’s problems, Reyes said. Department of Public Safety Commissioner Clyde Norita and Department of Lands and Natural Resources Secretary Dr. Ignacio Dela Cruz are doing well, Reyes said. CUC Executive Director Antonio Muna, he added, is trying to address a difficult situation. Reyes believes that Cruz is being fed information by some politicians or groups that want to express their sentiments but don’t want to be identified. “He is not a very knowledgeable person but sometime when you look at his press releases it sound like it came from somebody who is knowledgeable,” Reyes said. “I have seen his writing and he often has grammatical errors. He’s not a good writer.” Cruz said politicians do not support their group because “they are afraid of us.” He again challenged Reyes to prove that he applied for a job with the Fitial administration.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Introductory, pending and passage of house bills

Monday, February 4, 2008

Senate, House still deadlocked over LB director

Tuesday February 5, 2008


THE two houses of the Legislature have yet to agree on who to appoint as the new Legislative Bureau director.

The Republican-led House of Representatives wants Ed Tenorio, a former special assistant for management and budget, to replace Jack Omar as LB director.

Sen. Maria T. Pangelinan, D-Saipan, said the Senate leadership wants LB deputy director Glenna Palacios-Reyes for the job which draws an annual salary of $70,000 to $80,000.

A long-time legislative staffer, Palacios-Reyes is the wife of Senate President Pete P. Reyes, Ind.-Saipan.

Section 17 of the CNMI Constitution stated that the LB director “shall be appointed by the joint House and Senate majorities, and shall be free from political harassment and pressure.”

Pangelinan said the Senate majority believes that since Palacios-Reyes is the deputy director she should succeed Omar.

Reyes, in a separate interview said, said due to his relationship to Palacios-Reyes, he is keeping his hands off the matter.

The Senate has designated Pangelinan as its negotiator with the House.

2 comments:

Unknown said...

Anyone that believes that President Reyes is not involved is nuts. Frica is his puppet. His wife already earns $60,000 as the Deputy Director. Instant public dollars straight into the President's pockets. They've been ripping off the people for years, ever since she was his secretary and they were living together. I wonder what she got paid while she was directly under him?

shewhowatches said...

This situation was poorly reported, read the entire letter from Senator Pangelinan to the House, and you will find that, in fact, she was not pushing for the hiring of the Deputy Director, but questioning the need for a change in the directorship of the LB just because there is a new legislature. The LB staff are not civil service, and they should be, to protect them from this kind of upheaval every two years: Below is a copy:




The Issue: Who, if anyone, should be hired as Director of the Legislative Bureau.

Information:
Section 17 of the CNMI Constitution as amended established a legislative bureau in the Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature.

The following is stated verbatim from the Constitution:

a) The bureau shall be headed by a director to be appointed by the joint leadership of the legislature consisting of the presiding officers, vice presiding officers, floor leaders, and the chairmen of the standing committees.

b) The director shall employ all necessary staff, other than personal staff of the members of the legislature, pursuant to budgetary allocations. The staff members shall include legal counsel and other administrative staff.

c) The bureau shall provide all required services to the legislature in connection with duties and responsibilities during the session and committee meetings. It shall maintain all records, files, library and other documents of the legislature.

d) The director may be removed by a majority of the members of each house of the legislature with or without cause.

e) The bureau shall be free from any political harassment or pressure.

The issue of who should be appointed Director for the bureau began when the 16th Legislature became organized and ready to conduct business.

The 15th Legislature appointed the current director, whose contract will expire September 30, 2008. The current deputy director was hired by the current director and her contract will also expire on September 30, 2008.

The current director was hired by the Presiding Officers of both Houses of the 15th Legislature. At the time both Presiding Officers were Covenant Party members.

Because of the alliances forged during the first days of the 15th Legislature, the leaders of both houses were able to get majority support for their choice of appointee to the legislative bureau directorship.

As a result, the Director of the Legislative Bureau was appointed with little or no participation by members of the legislature who were not a part of the new leadership alliance.

Questions to be answered;

" What are the roots of the problem behind the disagreement about who should be director of the legislative bureau when both Houses now have majority support of a single party?
" How is the current process different from what occurred at the beginning of the 15th Legislature and which, if either, is proper?
" What is a proper process, when should it occur, and who should participate in the evaluation of each applicant and proposing a appointment?
" What problems should be addressed?
" Is this an opportunity to reconsider the entire structure of the legislative bureau?
" If the persons currently holding the director and deputy director positions are qualified, and expected to provide services in a non-partisan way, why do they need to be replaced at the beginning of a new legislative term and prior to the expiration of their contracts?
" Is an experienced legislative bureau a valuable tool for an incoming legislature with new members?
" Is one of the purposes of the legislative bureau to provide continuity of the legislative process, knowledge of legislative history, and experience to new members?
" Is it required (see Constitution above) that a majority of the legislature must vote for the removal of the current director, in order for this contemplated hiring process to occur?

Issues and Problems:

The issue is not who is more qualified to do the job.
The real issue is the degree to which politics is driving the process currently in play, and how it will affect the ability of the legislative bureau to provide services in a non-political manner to all members of the legislature.

One of the problems is that, according to the House, there were 4 applicants and a single candidate was chosen by a secret vote. The Senate leadership and committee chairpersons were not provided any information about the 4 applicants. In fact, the Senate leadership and committee chairpersons were not even informed of the fact that there were 4 applicants. To uphold the constitutional requirement that a legislative bureau director be appointed by the “leadership of the legislature”, the applications and resumes of each applicant should be supplied to all decision making parties, as well as an opportunity to interview each applicant.

Another problem is that the Legislative Bureau is expected to provide services to all members of the Legislature on a non-political basis. When valid contracts of employees of the legislative bureau are terminated for no other reason than the inauguration of a new legislature, it would follow that the process, as well as the new appointees, are political.

Finally, it appears that a majority of the Legislature must vote to remove the current director in order to contemplate appointing a new one.

Discussion:

As far as the history of hiring directors goes, it has been a political decision no matter how hard one might try to argue that it is not.

It is assumed that an individual interested in the job would talk to each legislator and indicate their interest, or the majority had already identified the individual they want as director, which is what happens in most cases. Obviously, only political supporters are appointed, obvious because the legislative leadership decides who to appoint.

In this case, however, because of the disagreement, and because the leadership of both houses are of the same party, there have been questions raised about ethics, conflicts of interest, and nepotism. These issues have been examined and addressed by an opinion from the OPA and the House Legal Counsel.

As a result of these opinions, and in an effort to avoid even the appearance of nepotism or a conflict of interest, the Senate President, being the spouse of one of the applicants, has recused himself from participating in the decision making process.

Additionally, the Senator who has been appointed to meet with the House Leadership is also the first cousin of the Senate President. This was disclosed to the members of the Senate before she agreed to act as their representative.

It was the consensus of the Senate members to promote the current deputy to the directorship position. She has the hands-on experience, already being given by the current director the bulk of the responsibility of administering the legislative bureau.

The House leadership, however, reviewed the applications of 4 persons and chose one of them, a person different than the person proposed by the Senate.

The disagreement between the two houses as to the proper appointee remains unresolved.

The Constitution provides a budget for the legislative bureau to operate in an effective and independent manner and to be supported by professional and technical staff.

While the Constitution provides that the bureau should be free from any political harassment or pressure, because the majority leadership of both houses decides who should be appointed to be the director, the appointment is a political decision and is inherently not free of political pressure or harassment.

The contract of each legislative staff member includes a provision whereby they may be terminated by the director with 30 days notice, and with or without cause. Therefore, a change in legislative leadership which precipitates a change in legislative bureau directorship could also affect the employment of current staff who are supposedly not to be affected by political pressure. All are uncertain about whether or not they may lose their jobs and be replaced by appointees in repayment of political favors, family loyalties, etc.. If shake-ups of the legislative bureau at the beginning of a new legislature had not become part of the normal course of events, this uncertainty would not exist. Therefore, the current discussion about replacing the director has nothing to do with the issue of ethics, conflicts of interest, or other legal issues, but is solely political.

It is, sadly, just another round of political gamesmanship our government has earned a reputation for.

The current situation has escalated into a power struggle between the two houses. It defies the spirit of statesmanship and brings into question the non-partisan nature of the legislative bureau services, to say nothing of how poorly it plays in the press.

Options:

Start Over: Re-examine the necessity of appointing a new director at this time. Is it, in fact a necessity, or would it better serve the Legislature to rely on the carry-over of experienced staff in the Legislative Bureau from the 15th to the 16th Legislature? If the conclusion is reached that there are valid non-political reasons for replacing the current legislative bureau director, then the 4 applications reviewed by the House leadership, should be shared with the Senate leadership for evaluation. If it is found that the proposed appointee being supported by the Senate leadership is not one of the 4 applicants evaluated by the House, an equivalent application from this person should be submitted to all decision making parties in both houses in order to facilitate a fair and equal application process. The Legislature should also review the constitution and determine whether or not the current director must be removed by a majority vote of the Legislature in order to consider these new applicants.

Do Nothing: To do nothing means that both Houses will drop the issue and allow the current director and deputy director to complete their contracts on September 30, 2008. This means no personnel changes will occur in the bureau solely because of the newly formed leadership of the 16th legislature, therefore eliminating even the appearance of political paybacks or favoritism.

Expand: The deputy director will be appointed to the directorship. A compromise could be made to allow the applicant preferred by the House to be the deputy director, perhaps with the same salary as the director.

Retrench: Eliminate the deputy position, hire the deputy director to be the director with a lower salary. Review all current staff contracts and their job duties, and reduce staff where not needed. This move would be more in keeping with the reduced amounts of revenue available for the FY2008 budget.

Eliminate most of the Legislative Bureau: This might be a long-term option. Restructure the Legislative bureau, taking into consideration that all legislators have a budget allowing them to hire their own staff, therefore in many instances there is a duplication of duties, an obvious waste of government funds. The bureau would retain only enough staff to maintain basic requirements and support services, such as legal counsel, sergeant-at-arms, librarian, etc..

Thats the whole thing. Its not like the papers said.

New law tightens definition of "loitering"

120107 st- Local Saturday, December 01, 2007 By Agnes E. DonatoReporter


A GOOD LAW!!

Gov. Benigno R. Fitial has approved a bill strengthening the law against streetside solicitation of customers in the Commonwealth.The newly enacted law provides a clearer definition of acts of loitering.Under the legislation, attempting more than one time to lure a customer into a commercial transaction, whether legal or illegal, through shouting, calling, or beckoning, is prohibited.Also banned is grabbing or touching of potential customers for commercial gain.A person convicted of loitering may be fined up to $1,000 or sentenced to up to 30 days in prison.Public Law 15-113 was enacted in a bid to clarify two previous statutes against loitering. The Legislature said that P.L. 14-50 and P.L. 14-93 had been ineffective in curbing the aggressive street-side solicitation of tourists and other people in the CNMI.The governor noted the previous laws required that there be “repeated” attempts or acts of loitering, but failed to define “repeated.”“This measure clarifies the language, which in turn will assist law enforcement officers when determining if a person is loitering or attempting to loiter for commercial gain,” Fitial said.