Hence, it is only natural that people who are extremely disappointed with the goings on at the AGO would want an elected AG.
An elected AG, of course, is also a politician. But it will be in his political interest to do a good job as an AG and not as the governor’s yes-man. There is a big difference. If the elected AG turns out to be a bad AG, then the voters will kick him out. Right now, the people can’t do anything about an AG who is performing poorly. To keep his job, an appointed AG needs only to please his boss, the governor.
An elected AG, to be sure, is not a silver bullet. But the status quo is harmful for the CNMI. Its primary considerations are personal and political ties instead of the rule of law.
It has to change. To paraphrase FDR, the CNMI must try something else, and if it fails, then try another — but above all, try something.
The elected AG proposal must be placed on the ballot. Concerned citizens should initiate a petition and begin soliciting the needed signatures.
The governor, incidentally, is against an elected AG, which is another good reason why the CNMI should have one.
Hopeless
CUC has been under the governor’s direct control since Aug. 2008. To justify his most recent emergency declaration, he warns that the feds may take over the agency. In other words, he wants to remain in charge despite the dismal results of his supervision.
CUC is struggling to comply with the federal stipulated orders and its accumulated fines have already reached over $600,000. All this happened under the governor’s watch and his solution is to give himself more time to…what exactly? Run CUC further into the ground?
Meanwhile, the contract of one the very few competent managers of CUC was not renewed. The House PUTC chairman wants to know why. Everyone knows why. Bruce Megarr is not a kowtower. And clearly, CUC’s executive director never forgave Megarr’s presence in a House subcommittee hearing last year. (See “Muna Gags Deputy CUC Director During Public Hearing” in the Variety’s May 18, 2009 issue.)
If CUC’s executive director and Megarr would apply for their positions at a private company, who do you think has better chances of getting the job? One is a political appointee with no experience in running a utility. The other is a professional hired as required by the federal stipulated orders precisely because he is qualified for the post.
The feds, in any case, have already pumped millions and millions of dollars into this failed entity. They should take over. A federal receivership, right now, is the most sensible solution to the long-standing problems at CUC.
Make distinctions
THE administration has called for austerity measures for almost three years, but continues to meet with resistance in large part due to the wholesale hiring of nonessential employees. Minority members, for their part, call for measures that would end up shrinking the revenue base. They suggested moving government offices into government facilities, but this will require spending money that the government doesn’t have and will end up costing more. The ruling party’s austerity bill, for its part, targets the rank and file employees only and will not result in substantial savings while imposing hardship on the lowly paid.
Lawmakers should dwell on the effect of the cuts on ordinary employees. They should also bear in mind that their chief responsibility is not providing employment but ensuring the delivery of public services. Some government agencies will play on public sentiment to pressure the Legislature into making exemptions — the wrong ones. But government jobs should only go to those who can directly affect the delivery of public services. On this basis alone, the government could cut hundreds of positions without impacting public services.
The delivery of essential public services is not priceless. It has a price tag. Someone needs to sit down and figure out what that is. There are lawmakers who know better but they have chosen to remain silent. They know, for example, that government revenues hover around $100 million and not the $130 million as claimed by the administration.
The judiciary, in any case, should be credited for standing firm on its “no cuts” policy and making necessary distinctions. PSS and CHC, too, make a difference. But at the hospital, the ratio of administrative staff to health care providers is simply outrageous. Before imposing austerity measures, lawmakers must make distinctions to make the right choices for the public good.
However, as long as they refuse to come to terms with the seriousness of the financial crisis facing the CNMI government, they will not make the appropriate cuts, and will eventually increase taxes and fees — the last thing that this gasping economy needs.
//
