By Zaldy Dandan
Variety Editor

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

SUDDENLY, perfect clarity — or, at least, less muddy waters.
CUC’s spokeswoman has indicated that the administration is calling the shots on the power privatization procurement. This explains why the governor worked so hard to fold CUC into the administration, and then realizing he couldn’t, converted it back to its independent status while creating another “independent advisory board” of political cronies to ensure that the administration’s dictates are adopted.
The citizens of the commonwealth have been on the sidelines watching as these events unfolded, not completely aware of the significant impact a poor power privatization proposal will have not only on consumers, but on the CNMI’s reputation abroad.
It is, to be sure, a good thing that the governor is so single-minded in his approach to problem-solving. Single-mindedness when applied correctly can achieve positive results. But this approach can also create harmful effects particularly in this case when the governor has no legal basis to take over CUC’s procurement decisions. This constitutes an abuse of power. It compromises the integrity of the procurement process, makes a mockery of the independence of autonomous agencies, and jeopardizes the CNMI’s reputation.
CUC says it has received 11 proposals from interested bidders, and this number has dropped to four because of the unusual $76,000 fee required to compete in this project. The unusually high pre-qualification fee along with the cumbersome pre-qualification process practically ensured that the number of potentially qualified respondents would drop, thus limiting the field of competitors.
This kind of procurement is bad for the CNMI and consumers. It is a flawed process that could end up costing consumers a lot more than they are currently paying, and there is not even an assurance, given the way this procurement has taken place, that service will improve.
Interestingly, though not surprisingly, the Saipan Chamber of Commerce has been mute on this subject, while most lawmakers prefer to speak about other, less critical issues.

On gov’t paycuts

ADMINISTRATION officials are now conditioning the public’s mind to more budget cuts by floating ideas like the 90-day austerity holiday and shifting locally funded positions to federally funded ones, a move, by the way, that will require federal grant amendments and prior approval from the feds.
Meanwhile, the administration refuses to exempt federally funded positions from the salary cuts. The Washington rep. and local federal program managers have reminded the administration that the CNMI could stand to lose badly needed federal funding because of these cuts, but this hasn’t deterred the administration from imposing them anyway.
It wouldn’t be fair, the administration claims, to exempt federally funded positions from the austerity cuts. Why not? Thousands of employees have already been exempted. Are all them really essential to provide public service?
It will be interesting to watch administration officials define exactly what “essential” services and positions are.
The chairman of the Board of Education earlier this week claimed that PSS has 300 teacher aides and other “vital” employees, including bus drivers, that will be terminated if exemptions are not made. It is doubtful that the number of teacher aides is really that high, and if PSS hasn’t already exempted bus drivers from salary cuts, then there really is a problem with the school system’s administration and BOE. Bus drivers would be exempted under any scenario. Otherwise, how can the kids get transportation to school each day?
The Fitial administration, at any rate, will have to identify which positions are essential. It has to evaluate, for example, whether it is absolutely essential for the lt. governor’s staff to be exempted and whether all police and correctional officers are absolutely essential to deliver public services.
All independent agencies, including the Office of the Public Auditor, will have to determine if everyone in their offices is essential.
The judges, for their part, have made arguments why their salaries shouldn’t be cut, citing workloads and various other duties performed even on weekends. We have two questions: 1) Should all judges and justices at all times be exempt from cuts?; and 2) Are all employees at the judiciary essential to perform a public service at all times?
Given the extent of this government’s bankruptcy, the likely answer is that not all government employees are essential to perform a government service and that cuts will have to be made surgically, with thought and a lot of prior consideration.
These are choices that government leaders don’t like to make. But, this time, they have to.