By Emmanuel T. Erediano
emmanuel@mvariety.com
Variety News Staff
THE Department of Public Works on Monday submitted to the Civil Service Commission a statement of issues in response to the statement of issues that attorney Michael W. Dotts filed on behalf of former DPW Public Information Officer Felipe Q. Atalig’s complaints and claims.
Assistant Attorney General Charles P. Reyes Jr. submitted DPW’s statement of issues pursuant to a scheduling order issued by CSC administrative hearing officer Mark Scoggins on July 16, 2025. The hearing had been scheduled for Nov. 17, 2025, but CSC Chairperson Raymond M. Muna took the matter off the calendar in a sua sponte order on Oct. 22, 2025.
DPW’s statement of issues asks: “Did DPW violate any provision of 1 CMC §9112(f) when it terminated Felipe Atalig’s employment for cause after he inserted his hand into a co-worker’s front pocket and grabbed the co-worker’s testicles at the workplace during office hours, without the co-worker’s consent or approval?”
1 CMC §9112(f) refers to the statute on administrative procedure, which states:
“To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.”
It provides that the reviewing court shall:
– Compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.
– Hold unlawful and set aside agency actions, findings, and conclusions found to be:
(i) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
(ii) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity.
(iii) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory rights.
(iv) Without observance of procedure required by law.
(v) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to 1 CMC §§9108 and 9109 or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.
(vi) Unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.
In making such determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error, DPW stated.
Atalig, 85, retained Dotts after nearly nine years of representing himself in a lawsuit against DPW. Battling prostate cancer, the former PIO — who is a married man — is seeking back pay dating back to March 2018. He challenged his termination, telling the CSC and Superior Court that he and the male co-worker were merely “joking around” when he placed his hand in the co-worker’s pocket.
Emmanuel “Arnold” Erediano has a bachelor of science degree in Journalism. He started his career as police beat reporter. Loves to cook. Eats death threats for breakfast.