By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

THE chief legal counsel of the Tinian Casino Gaming Control Commission has sued the Office of the Tinian Municipal Treasurer and David Maratita in his personal capacity as municipal treasurer and others identified only as Does 1 through XX for refusing to authorize payment of his salary.
Elliott A. Sattler, through his counsel Colin M. Thompson, filed the lawsuit in federal court on Friday after his salary was cut by 36 percent.
His complaint did not mention the amount of his salary, and nobody was available for comment at TCGCC as of press time yesterday.
Sattler, a former CNMI assistant attorney general, filed two claims for relief: violation of 42 USC § 1983 — Art. 1 § 10 cl.1of the U.S. Constitution — and Intentional Interference with a Contract.
Sattler’s complaint stated that defendants knew of the employment contract between him and the TCGCC.
The defendants “intentionally procured the breach by the TCGCC of the contract between Sattler and the TCGCC by refusing to authorize the expenditure of funds that were available to compensate the plaintiff in the amount agreed in the contract.”
According to the complaint, as a proximate result of the acts of the defendants, TCGCC breached its contract with Sattler resulting in damages to the plaintiff.
The complaint stated that Sattler’s contractual relationship with TCGCC “was and is substantially impaired by the defendants actions because his salary was reduced by approximately 36 percent.”
The complaint added that the actions of the defendants “were intentional, unjustified and caused plaintiff to be deprived of his rights” under Article 1 § 10 cl.1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Sattler is asking for judgment against the defendants for actual damages and punitive damages; and for a declaratory judgment declaring that Section 407 of the Tinian Municipal Appropriations Act of FY 2006 is null and void as it violates Article 1 § 10 cl.1 of the U.S. Constitution.
He is also seeking an injunction enjoining the defendants from enforcing Section 407 of the Tinian Municipal Appropriations Act of FY 2006; for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; cost of suit and attorney fees; and all other relief that the court deems appropriate.
The TCGCC is an autonomous agency established to carry out the establishment, licensing, regulation and administration of casino gambling activities on Tinian.
Pursuant to negotiations in Aug. 2001, Sattler was hired as the commission’s chief legal counsel. His employment took effect on Dec. 1, 2001.
The complaint stated that after it was passed by the Tinian Legislative Delegation and the Tinian Municipal Council, Gov. Benigno R. Fitial signed the Tinian Municipal Appropriations Act of FY 2006 on June 15, 2006.
“Without setting forth any findings, statement, explanation or justification or stating any reason, basis, excuse or legal authority for interfering with the exclusive personnel authority of the TCGCC, Section 407 of the FY 2006 Act purported to reduce the plaintiff’s salary by approximately 36 percent,” the complaint stated.
It added that pursuant to sections 5(8) and 5(14) of the Revised Tinian Casino Gaming Control Act of 1989 and related TCGCC Personnel Rules and Regulations, the commission has sole and exclusive supervision and control over all personnel matters.
“There is no statutory authority or constitutional authority for the legislative branch of the CNMI government to alter, amend, modify or impair the rights and liabilities created by a valid contract existing between TCGCC and one of its employees,” Sattler stated in his complaint.
Pursuant to section 404 of the Tinian Municipal Appropriations Act of FY 2006, Maratita and the office of the municipal treasurer are in charge of the management of the funds appropriated by the measure.
The executive director of the TCGCC submitted a certified form of request for payroll of all employees to Maratita and the Office of the Municipal Treasurer requesting the semi-monthly salary of the commission, its employees and staff for the period of Oct. 1 to 14, 2006.
This was the first pay period under which the Municipality of Tinian was functioning according to the process and procedures of continuing appropriation.
According to the complaint, Maratita stated he would not certify the availability of funds or otherwise authorize payment of the plaintiff’s salary pursuant to his TCGCC employment contract.
Maratita stated that he would only authorize payment of the plaintiff’s salary on the basis set forth in Section 407 of the FY 2006 Act, the complaint stated.
It added that the executive director of the commission advised Maratita that Section 407 of the FY 2006 Act “was unconstitutional and therefore void and unenforceable.”
On Oct. 23, 2006, Maratita advised the TCGCC executive director that he had specifically rejected the certified form of request for compensation of Sattler as the rate indicated by the notification of personnel action was illegal since it violated section 407 of the FY 2006 Act.
Maratita advised the executive director that unless a new certified form of request was promptly submitted seeking compensation for Sattler at the revised rate, the plaintiff would receive no salary for the pay period.
The complaint stated that despite continued requests by the plaintiff and the executive director to pay the plaintiff at the rate indicated in the notification of personnel action, the defendants continue to refuse to pay that amount.
As of the filing of this complaint, the proposed Tinian Municipal Budget for FY 2007 had not been approved.
The Municipality of Tinian and the TCGCC, at this time, function under a process of continuing appropriations pursuant to Section 407 of the FY 2006 Act.