That would be a serious consequence — if true. But the assertion raises a whole host of other questions about the nature of the financing arrangements and why the disclosure would compromise legal strategy.
The trial court didn’t buy the AGO’s arguments and so now the administration is hoping that the appellate court would.
But given the widespread opposition to his lawsuit, did it not occur to the governor that a question might be asked about funding since the Legislature declined to appropriate funds for it?
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the public whose funds, apparently, are being used to finance it. The trial court, in its ruling, agreed with the AGO that the following should not be disclosed: Jenner & Block’s engagement letter, which includes the definition of the issues, general strategy statements and estimations of success in the lawsuit; and the detailed billing pages. “However,” the trial court added, “nothing contained within the invoice summaries is a matter which is not normally, or is not already, a matter of public records. Revealing what amount the CNMI is being billed and the hourly rates of the attorneys, in no way, disadvantages the CNMI in the…[l]awsuit. Therefore, the nondisclosure is clearly unnecessary to protect a vital government interest.” The same goes with the vouchers, which “merely show what payments have been made to Jenner & Block.” Moreover, the memos, journal entries, and the governor’s account ledger “reflect the same payment information and add no new information.”
The trial court said it is “unable to articulate a single reason that would make nondisclosure [of these documents] necessary to protect a vital government function.”
Yet the administration insists on secrecy.
The Open Government Act was enacted because the government must operate in an open manner. It must divulge routine information to the public that it supposedly serves. This ensures that government processes are open to review, which provides a check on the abuses of those in power.
The law, to be sure, provides for exemptions, but, in the case before us, it is hard to conceive of a legal strategy that would collapse upon the disclosure of its financing source.
At any rate it is in the public’s interest to know how its government is funding this lawsuit. And the public will know, sooner or later.
About the budget
THE budget review process is usually done hastily and without the public input that would assure a full accounting of resources or their proper allocation. The Legislature has, in the past, taken the administration’s package and passed it with little review — even if government obligations were not included for payment.
There are now many deficiencies in public service and the budget review should be the perfect time to fix these problems or at least attempt to evaluate in detail why they exist. The Senate Fiscal Affairs Committee and its chairwoman should be commended for taking the lead to get into the bottom of the government’s financial barrel.
DEBRA Cabrera headed the accreditation team for Northern Marianas College and it was their report, the collective effort of hardworking professionals at NMC, that resulted in its reaccreditation.
But many of these professionals have left the college, and many more will follow, leaving only the staunchest supporters of the current president behind. The details are not known to the public but big changes are ongoing at the college. What the result will be is anybody’s guess although the early signs are disheartening.
Meanwhile, the CNMI can breathe the (temporary) sigh of relief that accreditation brings, and put off to the future any concern over the direction that the board of regents and the president have chosen for this institution.
