THIS was my year of learning about the Legislature from the inside. Some of what I have learned is technical, about where the resources are, and about the legislative process.
Many people, staffers and legislators alike, have been particularly helpful and accommodating, and I am grateful for their help.
I’ve learned a lot about politics and legislative temperament. I can see that there are legislators and there are politicians. The difference is clear when you work here.
Working with the media has also been illuminating. In the search for newsworthy items, it seems inherent that there is more reporting on divisive issues rather than on the consensual and unanimous ones.
I have come to some conclusions about legislators and the legislative process. In my mind, government exists for limited purposes: to provide basic services, maintain order in a society, and to assist people who need help.
The Legislature has best served itself and the commonwealth when individual legislators have been willing to subordinate their own agendas in the interest of building consensus and institutional legitimacy.
I think a healthy legislative temperament is a willingness to step back from one’s personal views and objectively evaluate legislation, doing the research and the math, while keeping in mind one’s role as a representative who serves the people.
I do not believe legislators should be brokers for any specific special interest, agency, or department, including our own branch of government.
I will say that I respect my colleagues in the Senate. I am fortunate to be in the company of good minds. We are a group of distinct individuals.
I read in the newspapers that some think of us as all being the same. This is not true. We did not morph into an unresponsive and self-centered monolith on Election Day. Most of us are dedicated to meeting the expectations you voiced when you elected us.
We may occasionally appear to be a group of unruly prima donnas. New legislation can provoke fierce initial disagreements. Certainly, just because a piece of legislation ends up with unanimous support or defeat doesn’t mean that is how the process began.
I have seen colleagues vote for a particular piece of legislation and risk losing the support of certain special interests, choosing to work for the benefit of all the people of the CNMI, not just a few.
I also have been faced with choices. Some of the compromises that have been necessary to gain support for a critical bill have been against my better judgment. The benefit has been that the bulk of critical legislation passed.
To its credit, this Legislature has passed a number of measures that are on target, and address critical issues. We need more.
Admittedly, there are weaknesses in this branch of the government. It should be a matter of pride to lead by example and reduce the spending and size of the legislative branch. Legislation that would accomplish this is seldom introduced and seldom passed.
It is disappointing when compromise, political expediency, or maneuvering for reelection move the Legislature away from staying focused on the hard choices that will prevent our government from imploding. We are running out of time.
We need to stay focused on solvable problems instead of debating irreducible principles.
We legislators need to consider that restoring legitimacy and credibility to our branch of the government requires suppressing our personal agendas in the interest of achieving consensus and stability. We, and the entire institution, will benefit from this in ways not otherwise possible.
I would like to see more of us resist the pressures to promote themselves rather than the interest of the Legislature as a whole.
In the long-run loners are less effective than team players, and the loose cannons eventually shoot themselves in the foot.
I would like to see in the Legislature a greater collective willingness to engage in consensus building and the requisite labor-intensive and complex work that is necessary to make careful and beneficial changes to the laws of our commonwealth.
I look back at the 2005 election campaign, the issues and goals that were discussed and the promises we candidates made. Most of those issues are still not being addressed. Why this is so is pretty much common knowledge and has been openly discussed for years.
When we waste time producing resolutions that request changes to the names of streets and buildings, we are not doing our jobs.
When steps are not taken to cut costs in the Legislature, we are not doing our jobs
I think the Legislature is well overdue for an examination of its structure. If we don’t we will completely lose what credibility and legitimacy remain.
When we donate money from our yearly budget allotment instead of giving it back to the general fund for lawful distribution via the budgeting process, we are not doing our jobs.
When a good piece of legislation is smothered because of a partisan divide, political maneuvering and even, sadly enough, gender ego, we are not doing our job.
Twice I have submitted a bill to the Legislature, a reform package for the problems plaguing the Retirement Fund. S.B. 15-76 is not a bill that would ever, on its own, make headlines, nor was it written with that end in mind. It is, however, the product of months of diligent research. It is thoughtful, carefully crafted, and fiscally sound. This is a critical piece of legislation. If it becomes law, it would finally address some of the issues that have the Retirement Fund and the government standing at the brink of financial disaster.
S.B. 15-76 is complicated because it addresses complex issues that took years of irresponsible legislative action to create. In conjunction with the new DCP plan it is a reasonable way to help the government back toward solvency and deal with the serious issue of funding the Retirement Fund. It has not been passed by the House of Representatives. I know that some of the representatives understand and support this reform package, and I applaud those that voted in support of it.
Recently, a DBP reform bill, H.B. 15-221, was introduced in the House. It started as a copy of S.B. 15-76, but has been radically altered in an alarming fashion.
S.B. 15-76 requires that any future proposals by the Legislature to increase retirement benefits be approved by a vote of the people. The House bill eliminates this provision.
The Senate bill keeps the accountability and responsibility of correcting the DBP funding crisis at its place of origin, with the Legislature. The House bill transfers the consequences of the lack of funding by dropping it squarely on the backs of beneficiaries and retirees.
Essentially, the House bill would allow the Retirement Fund to short pay retirees, based on the amount of funding their individual accounts received. The government has not paid the full amount of employer contributions for years. H.B. 15-221 puts the retirement benefits of thousands in jeopardy, the same benefits that S.B. 15-76 is designed to protect.
Support of H.B. 15-221 is not from ignorance, but from the fact that for some, it is politically expedient.
If you want to make a difference, track our voting records. You elected us, we work for you.
I know how important the welfare of the commonwealth is to you. I am encouraged by the participation and input that constantly comes from the public.
I came to the Senate to help make our islands a better place, to improve our quality of life and give our children a place where they can work and raise their families. This is my mandate and it means, among other things, creating well-written legislation that squarely addresses wasteful and excessive spending by your government. You will see more from me about this in the near future.

SEN. MARIA FRICA T. PANGELINAN
15th CNMI Legislature