MR. Ambrose Bennett wrote on Feb. 17, 2007 in the Saipan Tribune the following: “The inability of the local municipalities to create ‘ordinances’ is becoming more and more a necessity as our population increases and the demands for services and protection increases.” If the inability to create ordinances by the municipality is a problem, why is it that it is a necessity? This is as confusing as the division of the Mason/Dixon line of the United States for those that do not know civic history.
The other thing is that there are no 50 states — the United States consists of 47 states and three commonwealths: Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. If Mr. Bennett’s assertion is correct, the CNMI is probably more aligned to these commonwealths than the other 47 states. Frankly, our commonwealth was established by the Covenant under a federal statute and formulated through the process of a constitutional convention, and voted and approved by the people of the Northern Marianas. So, in order for one to make assertions about the civility of the formation of the CNMI government, he must read, review and understand the transcripts and analysis of the records of the first and subsequent constitutional conventions. Also, the records of the Marianas Political Status Commission that negotiated the Covenant should be a critical source as well. These processes formed the CNMI government from which our organization of government was put to reality and continued until today to be evolving. Since a reference as to the sameness of governmental structure as to the 50 states, according to Mr. Bennett’s logic, was not a factor in the deliberations in the constitutional conventions nor the negotiation of the Covenant; such comparison or contrasting is ill founded. Secondly, the CNMI government is a new government and like an infant it will continue to evolve and struggle toward its maturation status.
Thirdly, none of the 47 states and three commonwealths in the United States are required to be under the jurisdiction of the undersecretary of the interior for insular affairs. If they are, then the CNMI has the same governmental structure. So, a one size fit all analogy is uncalled for and is an elementary thinking to say the least. The founding fathers of the Covenant and delegates to the constitutional conventions are still alive today. I suggest to Mr. Bennett that he consult these individuals if he does not have the time to read the records of the transcripts in both the constitutional conventions and the negotiations of the Covenant.
Though the CNMI may be a young and evolving government, we have over the short period of time since becoming a commonwealth provided stability in traditional governmental services to the citizenry of the CNMI. Our governmental organization may have shorted its ability in addressing crimes by the chartered municipalities; but it is now more a question whether continuing such an organization is necessary for the good of the future generations. This is the evolving question that will seek for answers on the alignment of governmental organization of the CNMI. The process is destined for intense debate and deliberations and a plebiscite will be needed.
Crimes in the CNMI have not risen to the level that match the incidences in places like cities of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Baltimore, Atlanta, and other inner cities in America. A minor thing like “neighborhood watch” program is no substance to be used as an anchor in suggesting that our governmental organization is the same to that of governmental structure of the 50 states. We certainly have lists of accomplishments with which our CNMI government has outperformed other states. Lastly, look before you leap when making references to our sameness with external elements and conditions that are not unique to the CNMI government.

FRANCISCO R. AGULTO
Chalan Kanoa, Saipan