IT’S frustrating when one calls a public office of an elected official, only to have a staff member (of this public office) hang up on you, (not just once but three times) and be threatened with a complaint to the Guam Police, for harassment. Is this public service?
Imagine an elected official closing his eyes and ears to the many complaints from his/her constituents, when a member of his staff continues to practice this disservice to the public? Although the public has aired their complaints, nothing is done to counsel or reprimand this employee. While other employees are terminated for insubordination, this “special” employee remains to be employed at this certain public office.
Is there a “conflict of interests” when an elected official employs someone he/she is in a relationship with or living with? Are there laws that mandates an employment of such in a public office?
Public service is lacking in this certain public office. There is fear amongst the constituents that by simply asking questions over the phone, the police will be summoned. If the tone of their voice on the other line is unacceptable to this particular public employee, rest assured, a man in blue will be paying them a visit. The complaint filed by this public employee will be “harassment.”
Imagine commenting how all the children of the community lacked good parenting or upbringing because there was graffiti found on the elected official’s office wall? The graffiti was apparently directed to this public employee and her boss. So what was the approach of this public servant? Point the finger at all the children and request another government agency to remove them permanently from using the office as an area to wait for their school bus.
There were two minors accused and searched by the police, without the presence of their parents. The two minors were immediately accused of the wrongdoing by the employee, only because they were standing near the graffiti.Imagine the humiliation that the two minors felt (in front of other children) when the police were searching their bags? Did the police find the evidence? Were the rights of these two minors violated when they were falsely accused of the graffiti?
The elected official claims he is very concerned about the safety of the children. He alleges that the children were climbing the roof and chasing balls across the street and had witnessed the incidents himself. What was his approach? Did this elected public servant counsel the children, call their parents or call the school officials at the time he witnessed the incidents? Apparently not, because these incidents occurred before the graffiti on his office wall was found.
All of a sudden, the issue of safety came to light when the graffiti was directed to his employee and himself. I guess the graffiti is more of a safety hazard to this elected public servant than the children on the roof top of his office or the chasing of the balls across the street, as he claimed he witnessed?
Another safety concern of this elected public servant is how the children get wet during the rainy days, as they wait for their school bus in front of his office. Are the other bus shelters built in a way that would keep the children dry during the rainy days? And if he noticed that the children were getting wet, has this public servant thought of maybe providing the children a canopy to shelter them from the rain?
Overcrowding in front of his office? This elected public servant alleges that there are over 20 to 30 children in front of his office. Is it because the children feel more comfortable with the fact that there is more room in front of this public building than in the regular bus shelters? Is it because the children feel much safer in front of his public office rather than the secluded areas where they wait for their bus in their village? Have we forgotten how many school children have had incidents of being preyed upon at their bus shelters?
If this certain elected public servant is truly concerned about the safety of his children in his community, his priorities should be working towards a solution and not to shut the door of his public office because the children are misbehaving.
What a shame that this (elected) public servant considers the graffiti (directed to him and one employee) is more of a safety hazard rather than the children climbing on the roof top and chasing balls across the street. It’s rather a disservice to the children that this public official would rather have them wait at a (dark) secluded area in the village for their bus. And when something tragic happens to one child ( at this secluded bus shelter), will this elected official put blame on the parents for lacking good parenting and upbringing qualities?
Funny how, that on the letterhead of this public office, the motto is “Where Public Service Begins.” I am still trying to find the “Where”!

ANITA MANIBUSAN
Talofofo, Guam