But all during this entire year, no mention has been made about payment of the “energy charge” assessed by Aggreko on a weekly basis. That energy charge is 5 cents per KWH generated with an $84,000 MINIMUM due each week. Two questions for Mr. Muna: 1) Where did CUC get the money to pay not only $1.5 million in lease rent, but also for fuel during July? And, 2) Is CUC current in payment of the energy charge assessments and exactly how much were they for each week? “Tiganas” is correct — the total of the Aggreko contract MINIMUM payments is a little OVER $11 million — with about $8 million of that being pure profit for Aggreko. Wanna bet some of that “profit” isn’t getting spread around?
Regarding the online comments from “Dora” about the serious deficiencies in auto insurance coverage on Saipan; I called USAA insurance company at 1-800-531-8722 and spoke with “Julian.” He stated that the only auto insurance coverage their company writes in the NMI is for ACTIVE military, other direct U.S. government employees and employees of private companies on island under a U.S. government contract. Other private citizens in the NMI will NOT be covered in case of a claim. To get USAA insurance you must qualify under one of the above three categories. They have an office in Guam. The company does write policies for anyone in the 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam and Guantanamo in Cuba. I hope “Dora” is in one of the stated categories.
On Friday, a convicted swindler wrote a letter entitled ‘Sorry!’ purportedly to “apologize” for her actions. The letter was part of a court-ordered decree. But, what kind of apology to the people was it? It stinks! The acts committed were not acts of “compassion” —they were deliberate acts of greed and complicity done for self-benefit, FAMILY and personal friends to the detriment of the remainder of CUC’s customers. Furthermore, you don’t get convicted of a serious crime by violating some company “policy” as argued by the writer in order to diminish her deed; she was convicted of a CRIME — not a policy error! This non-apology “apology” should be rejected by the court and a new order entered for a “real” apology that accepts responsibility for what the crime was and at least gives some indication that the person making it actually regrets what she did. No more of that glossed over attempt to decrease her ownership of the deed. This just shows that she has learned little, has a poor moral character and little or no respect for the public she was supposed to serve.
As you may have guessed by now, I’m fed up with the recent string of so-called apologies being printed in the paper’s editorial section. All are court-ordered and most are tiny little diatribes attempting to relegate the perpetrator’s deeds to little more than a minor inconvenience and the word “sorry” is supposed to convince the public that all is now well and forgiven. Your debt to society is not fulfilled with such meaningless examples of poor writing. Maybe, if the letters actually held ownership of the doer’s deed and expressed a true sentiment of regret, they might suffice as one small step forward.
More importantly, would the letters have been written at all if not court-ordered? These letters came from “the court,” not the heart, so where is the meaning? People who must be “ordered” to write, rather than doing it on their own because it’s the right thing to do, should never be allowed to hold a position of trust again. Can’t wait to see the “apology” from Tim!
DR. THOMAS D. ARKLE JR.
San Jose, Tinian
