However, it seems that lawmakers would rather wrangle over whether to reconstitute the public lands board, again. That board was abolished in 1994, re-established three years later through a veto override that was clinched by a single vote, only to be dissolved again in 2006. This is a contentious issue because it is about control over a very precious resource — public lands. Not surprisingly, in the past 14 years, the public saw the Marianas Public Lands Corp. become the Division of Public Lands, which was later re-named the Bureau of Public Lands, before morphing into the Marianas Public Lands Authority which is now the Department of Public Lands.
The unresolved debate is whether it is better to place this authority over public lands in the hands of one man — the governor — or of an “autonomous” board…whose members are usually the governor’s political supporters. The critiques of whatever the current setup is are usually the members of the opposition party.
CUC, too, had a board, and then none. Now, there is an advisory board for utilities, a regulatory commission, and, soon, a new CUC, with a new board.
Did all this improve the administration of public lands or the delivery of utility services?
Do we really have to ask this rhetorical question?
The people, in any case, are tired of watching their leaders reinvent the wheel, instead of leaning how to use it properly. The public is now looking for straightforward and not more circular solutions to long-standing problems.
THE difference between the budgets passed by the House and the Senate is the difference between a coloring book and a college textbook. The Senate Fiscal Affairs Committee and its chairwoman produced a comprehensive and well-researched bill backed by real numbers and a detailed report that explains the rationale behind its key provisions. The Senate did its homework. The House, which took too long to pass a hodge-podge bill with cut-and-paste numbers, did not. The author of the House bill couldn’t even vote for it.
In any case, both houses of the Legislature have their own ideas about what the budget must do in this fiscal year. Nothing unusual with that. Lawmakers are attempting to pass the year’s most important piece of legislation and meet their primary obligation to the people. Now, as in previous years, they will have to convene a bicameral conference committee to draft a new bill acceptable to all lawmakers.
The main sticking point, of course, will be the implementation of austerity measures that everyone on Capital Hill knows is unavoidable. The only question is when and how to do it. House members are facing the electorate next year and are understandably more wary of upsetting government employees and their families — voters all. Fine. But the House must also offer a workable and fiscally responsible alternative.
The bottom-line should be the passage of a budget that reflects the actual collections of the government and allows for the delivery of crucial public services. Clearly, the House can no longer wash its hands of this government’s financial mess.
