Anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to ascertain that the rest of the bill is flawed and not realistic.
The suggestion that the Public School System take on the task of offering a driver education curriculum without providing any funding for teachers, automobiles, gasoline, maintenance, insurance, etc. is simply ludicrous and irresponsible. Additionally, S.B. 17-20 suggests that PSS take on the responsibility of educating the students who attend the non-public high schools.
How would that work? When would those students attend classes and participate in the laboratory program.
Would those students be required to pay for the classes? It’s just too mind-boggling to even consider.
The bill also states that “The Legislature finds that the predicament can be resolved if the Public School System establishes a Student Driver Education Program like many of the public schools in the U.S. jurisdictions”
Does the author of this bill have any statistical data to support this claim? One only needs to look to Guam to see that the driver education program in the Guam public schools was dropped in 1998 due to a lack of funding.
My trip back to Ohio in December netted the same findings.
Lost in this bill is the fact that P.L. 15-25 requires that all persons complete and pass a driver’s education course as a prerequisite for the issuance of an initial driver’s license within the CNMI. S.B. 17-20 only addresses those students who are 16 to 18 years of age. There is no reference relative to those individuals who are not enrolled in the CNMI high schools.
The suspension of P.L. 15-25 would also allow those individuals to obtain their licenses without any schooling, and no provision in the bill is offered to address this issue at a later date. Forty-one percent of my students are older than 18 years of age.
What will happen if S.B. 17-20 becomes law? That’s simple. The “temporary suspension” will become permanent and the efforts of the 14th and 15th Legislatures will go for naught. (The Mandatory Driver Education Law was actually passed twice. Lawmakers in the 15th Legislature felt that a similar bill which was passed by 14th Legislature and vetoed by Governor Babauta, was important enough to reintroduce and send to Governor Fitial for his signature.)
The standards for obtaining a driver’s license would, once again, be lowered and the CNMI would return to status quo.
The bill rationalizes that the students of Saipan are now driving illegally because they cannot afford the tuition.
Where is the data for that assertion?
Sadly, anyone who has lived here for any length of time knows that this problem also existed prior to the enforcement of P.L. 15-25 along with counterfeit licenses, and illegally-purchased licenses.
P.L. 15-25 actually assisted in the apprehension of the two individuals in June 2009 who were extorting money from individuals for driver licenses and permits, simply because the law creates a paper trail. I have searched the papers for accounts of similar arrests over the years and have found none. Was this the first?
The tuition that we charge is also an issue that needs to be addressed.
The price of gasoline in the CNMI is significantly higher than anywhere in the United States including high-end markets like New York City, Los Angeles, and Hawaii. Petrol, automobile maintenance, insurance, rent, taxes, and CUC utilities significantly impact our gross revenues.
The $350 is the same tuition that we charged when gasoline was $2.82 per gallon. The price of a gallon of gasoline is now $3.77 and could reach $4 before the end of 2010. Everything is expensive here. It’s the price one pays for living on an island.
To ease the impact of our tuition, our students are given the option of paying the tuition in three installments. Those installments are collected over a minimum period of five months.
In a free enterprise system, prices are lowered when there is competition and not by interference from the Legislature. (Unfortunately, competition is not a factor here for gasoline prices.) The fact that we are the only
commercial enterprise offering this service speaks volumes. The hours are long, the business is expensive to run, and the net is not as lucrative as some might want to believe.
Even so, I am somewhat perplexed by the fact that no one has opened a school on Rota and/or Tinian. Why is that? Of course, it is most certainly not the fault of P.L. 15-25.
So where do we go from here?
I would encourage that my students, their parents, significant others, and/or friends come forward and weigh in on this issue before the law is addressed in the House. Share your thoughts and concerns regardless of whether they are positive or negative. Be involved. Be heard. It’s the only way the members of the House can make an informed decision.
RICHARD PUHALLA
ISTS/DTA
Owner/Operator
