THE Department of Public Lands hosted a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the commercial rules and regulations governing Managaha on Friday, Aug. 16.
In attendance were several tourism stakeholders and community members, who opposed the proposed changes.
Since DPL announced the proposed amendments last month, it has faced criticism from members of the public.
The proposed changes would prevent the consumption of outside food and beverages in its main concessionaire’s exclusive concession area; restrict certain personal floatation devices in the designated swimming zone; and “further define” the type of commercial activity that may only be conducted by the main concessionaire and authorized sub-concessionaires.
On Friday, David Sablan, DPL’s special advisor, said no one is proposing to prevent locals from accessing Managaha.
“There is nothing in the proposed amendments that mentions any restrictions on non-commercial activities by our [people of Northern Marianas Descent], nor any other visitor, to continue to use the island for any non-commercial purposes,” he said. “The proposed amendments will not stop locals from bringing food and beverages for parties and barbecues with friends and families.”
DPL’s July 15 public notice states that the proposed changes are being considered to help the main concessionaire, Marianas Global Inc., avoid liability. The “standard Managaha Island Master Concession Operator Agreement” between DPL and Marianas Global Inc. also requires that DPL be secured against liability “for any injuries or losses which occur in the exclusive concession area.”
On Friday, attorney Mark Scoggins said he was the lead attorney in a 2012 lawsuit filed by marine sports operators. He said even back then, DPL wanted to change the rules and regulations, but these were opposed by his clients.
Scoggins said the proposed changes will lead to the closure of his clients’ businesses.
The main issue of opposition revolves around what DPL calls “Managaha-to-Managaha” commercial activity.
According to DPL, “Managaha-to-Managaha commercial activity” and/or “Managaha-to-Saipan commercial activity” can only be conducted by the main concessionaire or its authorized sub-concessionaire. As an example, if a person is picked up on Managaha for parasailing and then returned to Managaha at the conclusion of the parasailing activity, such activity is the exclusive right of the main concessionaire or its authorized sub-concessionaire. It would likewise be the exclusive right of the main concessionaire or its authorized sub-concessionaire even if the person was picked up on Managaha but parasailed to Saipan.
Scoggins said his clients “will go out of business if this rule change is implemented.”
“This idea that marine sports will still be allowed out there as long as these companies are not touching down or leaving from the dock at Managaha — that’s not accurate,” he said.
He said his clients “cannot survive if they can’t use Managaha because it means they have to go back and forth between Saipan and the water. They need to go Managaha to be able to touch down and go back and forth.”
He said 12 years ago, the courts and the executive branch were not in favor of these proposed amendments either.
“It was a bad idea back then and it’s a bad idea right now,” he said.
Chung Lee of B-Sea Inc. expressed her “strong opposition” to the proposed changes.
“If the new regulations are adopted, employees will lose their jobs and they may be forced to leave Saipan to seek employment elsewhere,” she said. “You are talking about losing highly qualified and skilled boat captains and crew that have made a profession out of what they enjoy doing.”
“We always talk about the need to develop our local workforce; well, here they are — they are here. Their families are here and they’re about to lose their jobs,” she added.
Fabian Indalecio, a concerned citizen, was likewise opposed to the proposed changes. He also wondered if the public comment period would come to any fruition.
“The fate of these proposed amendments to the rules is a done deal,” he said. “I can say it has been pre-decided regardless of all public comments.”
In his opinion, the rule changes are “all in favor” of MGI, which, he added, hasn’t paid rent to the CNMI.
“In my opinion that is enough for any ordinary person to believe that the proposed amendments … to create rules favorable to MGI is unfair to marine sports operators who have made their livelihood from tourism,” he said. “Let’s be frank — all of you in here didn’t just wake up one morning and decide to correct an error in the rules and claim MGI has nothing to do with it. Of course it’s all about bending the contract rules to benefit MGI. Who are we fooling?”
Malia Johnson, speaking as a concerned citizen, asked for more “clarification and details” regarding the proposed changes.
She is opposed to giving MGI exclusive “Managaha-to-Managaha” commercial activity rights.
“Absolutely, let the main concessionaire sell and market their activities within their exclusive concessionaire area, but all other businesses should have the right to conduct their business anywhere in the lagoon or outside of the lagoon,” she said. “I’m not going to let you force me to hire the people on Managaha. If somebody on Saipan purchases a tour that takes them to Managaha, picks them up from Managaha, and on their way back to Saipan does activities, there’s nothing wrong with that and everybody should be allowed to do that as long as they are legal [business owners].”
Elsa Lieto owns a marine sports business and is opposed to the proposed changes.
“The million-dollar question is why? Why are we doing this? Why are we changing the rules? With the way you people are responding to the public it’s just telling us that you’re in favor of the master concessionaire,” she said. “We are major contributors to the tourism industry … we pay our taxes. We keep the economy going. We don’t all make the same money, but we all have to follow the same law.”
She also pointed to MGI’s non-compliance.
“From a businesswoman’s perspective I’m not going to do business with a company that doesn’t pay his bills, doesn’t pay his [CNMI business gross revenue tax], and is not in compliance with his contract,” she said.
The next public hearing is set for Aug. 19 in the DPL conference room at the Joeten Dandan building.
Elsa Lieto speaks at the DPL public hearing on Friday.
Malia Johnson voices her opposition to the proposed amendments.
Fabian Indalecio does not support the proposed changes to the Managaha rules.
Chung Lee of BSea Incorporated says the proposed changes will lead to job losses.
Attorney Mark Scoggins says the proposed changes were a “bad idea” in 2012, and remain a “bad idea” 12 years later.
