By Gina Tabonares
Variety News Staff

INTERVENORS in the $123 million cost of living allowance settlement agreement have disclosed that Superior Court Judge Arthur Barcinas’s mother stands to benefit from the COLA settlement, weeks after they pointed out that the judge’s father will also receive money from the deal.
Six taxpayers earlier filed a petition asking the court to invalidate Judge Barcinas’s earlier COLA ruling and disqualify the judge from the case due to a conflict of interest.
Judge Barcinas earlier ordered the government of Guam to pay thousands of retirees who are part of the COLA class.
Atty. Robert J. O’Connor, on behalf of Pat Duque, Arnold Davis Jr., Thomas Sheldon and Armando Dominguez, filed four pleadings on Feb. 12 in the trial court, which included a motion to disqualify Judge Barcinas, a motion to vacate judgment orders, and a motion to intervene.
The taxpayers say the decision on the amount of the COLA settlement should not have been entrusted to Judge Barcinas because his father, Jose T. Barcinas, is a member of the plaintiff class, and stands to benefit financially from the court ruling.
The judge’s father, according to O’Connor, is entitled to receive $134,595, the sixth biggest recipient out of about 4,000 retirees on the COLA list of payouts.
In a press statement released yesterday, O ‘Connor said aside from his father, Judge Barcinas’ mother Dolores R. Barcinas is also a major COLA recipient and is entitled to receive $59,402.47 under the judge’s recent class action rulings.
“This is worse than we thought,” said O’Connor.
“The judge selected a controversial method of computation for these COLA benefits which many experts and taxpayers felt was outlandish. He should have disclosed to the litigants and the public that both his father and his mother were to benefit enormously from his decision. This has the definite appearance of impropriety,” O’Connor said.
O’Connor earlier mentioned that other close relatives of the trial court judge are also COLA class members and will also receive lesser but still substantial amounts under the settlement.
The intervenors’ lawyer claimed that Judge Barcinas rejected other calculations proposed by the governor and the Retirement Fund, which would have been substantially lower because the recovery for his father and other relatives would have been less.
The taxpayers said because of Judge Barcinas’ questionable impartiality, his Nov. 21, 2006 judgment should be vacated and all orders entered in the case since the judge was assigned on March 17, 2005 should be abolished.
Besides Judge Barcinas’ conflict of interest, the intervenors also questioned Retirement Fund board members Wilfred Leon Guerrero and Joe T. San Agustin’s failure to disclose that they will also benefit from the court decision to almost as great an extent as the judge’s father.
Leon Guerrero and San Agustin were listed as the 11th and 19th highest beneficiaries of the court order.
O’Connor also argued that Judge Barcinas applied a flawed consumer price index that grossly overstated the inflation rate when the law required him to apply instead a cost of living index.
They taxpayers also question the awarding of $12 million in attorney’s fees to class counsel Mike Phillips. They said the amount should be determined through a fairness hearing.
The Guam Superior Court has yet to schedule a hearing on the motion to disqualify Judge Barcinas or to rule on the taxpayers’ request to intervene in the case on behalf of the taxpayers of Guam.