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.
Introductory, pending and passage of house bills
GOVERNOR FITIAL and ADMINISTRATION
- Fitial vows to hold onto guest workers program
- 031008 mv - 397 contractual gov’t workers threatened with furloughs, again
- 022108 mv - Administration urges Legislature to quickly pass budget
- 22108- Fitial plans to merge gov’t agencies
- Fitial OKs 18% retirement contribution rate with reservations
- 021408 st - Govt trainings centralized
- 20408 mv - Reyes: CUC salary structure needs to be revised
- 120607 mv - Governor wants BOE to set criteria for teacher rep selection
- 120507 st - Muna defends over-the-cap salaries
- 120107 st - New law tightens definition of 'loitering'
- 112707 mv- Governor disappointed by We Manage Calls’ ‘insincerity’
- 113007 mv - Fitial weds Immigration director
- 111307 mv -Finance says indirect cost rate for NMI’s grants under review
- 112007 mv -Finance secretary says economy hits rock-bottom
- 111307 mv -Gov’t to require complete, accurate tax statements
- Fitial tells cabinet members to submit courtesy resignations
- No more cabinet meetings
- Governor says he voted ‘straight’ Covenant
- Administration ready to work with new Legislature
- Fitial says Legislature allowed him to increase power rates
- Administration urges Legislature to support Kumho’s lease request
PETE A. Washington Rep.
16TH LEGISLATURE
- 032508 mv- Frica backs austerity Fridays, unpaid holidays
- 032108 mv - 11 legislative initiatives now pending in the House
- 031108 mv - REYES - says administration should be more transparent
- 031108 mv - J REYES - Lawmaker says Legislature needs generator
- 030708 mv - Yumul defends budget bill
- 030608 mv - Yumul questions administration’s math
- 030308 mv - HOUSE - Bill seeks separate tax account for Rota’s casino industry
- 030308 mv - HOUSE- proposes $164M budget for FY 2008
- 022908 mv - YUMUL WAYS & MEANS - Budget bill allots $38.7M for PSS
- 022808 mv - SENATE REYES: Legislature has no business over LB
- 022708 mv - SENATE - Fiscal Affairs committee turns down HB 16-23
- 022508 mv - Yumul to pre-file balanced budget bill on Feb. 28
- 022208 mv - HOFSCHNEIDER wants to reduce size of Legislature, and require government to pass annual budgets
- 022208 mv - TINA - On the use of public funds for charitable donations, and the budget of the Legislature
- 021108 mv - SENATE - passes bill to help students who can’t get gov’t jobs
- 020508 mv - Frica Pangelinan --Senate, House still deadlocked over LB director
- REP. TINA SABLAN
Department of Finance
RETIREMENT
Government Agencies
Community Opinion
- 052008 mv - Taxpayers getting impatient with US rebates’ release
- 052008 mv -GET REAL "who's next?
- 032108 mv - To the members of the 16th Legislature -DON COHEN
- 121407 mv - The tyranny of the elite minority
- 121107 mv - Letter to the Editor: The people have already spoken on the casino issue
- 121107 mv - Letter to the Editor: Slap-on-the-face move
- 12107mv- House Bill 15-322
- 120707 st - Limitations on freedom of speech
- 120507 st - Is this what being investor-friendly is?
- 120407 mv -Letter to the Editor: Humorous
- 120407 mv -Letter to the Editor: To House members
- 120307 mv -Letter to the editor: Ms. Tina Sablan
- 120307 mv -Letter to the editor: Sad
TAOTAO TANO CNMI
- 032108 mv - There’s nothing to be happy about MIURA
- 032108 mv - To Rep.Ray Yumul
- 031908 mv -OPA to prioritize public land issues
- 031908 mv - To Rep. Joseph C. Reyes
- 031008 mv - To NMI lawmakers
- 031808 mv - TTCAI seeks probe of land lease agreements
- 030508 mv - Gubernatorial plan
- 030508 mv -Taotao Tano wants DPL look into use of public land
- 022908 mv -To Ftr Billotti & Rp. Joe Reyes
- 022608 mv - On the federalization issue
- 022208 mv - Long overdue wage hike
- 022108 MV - Support pours in for NMC
NEW GROUP
Monday, February 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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.
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.
2 comments:
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?
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.
Post a Comment