Today's Milk

Hot, hot, hot. And humid.

  

This cartoon was inspired by the pie chart graph of the CNMI budget that appeared last week in the newspaper (the Tribune, I think).  In that real chart, the governor's office and "administration costs" took a disproportionately large chunk of the budget--bigger than CHC!  This humorous version exaggerates the reality to make a point.  The CNMI budget does not serve the interests of the people!

Marianas Milk today

This cartoon intends to show the sacrifices of the most important in our community for the sake of restoring 80 hours of work to government employees.  Cuts in education, CHC, Medicaid, and the benefits contributions are hurting the young, the sick, and the aged.  Instead, we will pay our bloated government payroll.  Politicians make these choices because their priority is re-election, not the good of the community.

The scales are balanced, but the pool of bloody victims is not pretty.

CNMI Political Negotiations-still no budget

October 3, 2010. Still no budget.

2010-Government Shutdown?

After several days of grey skies and rain, it's finally clearing. Hot and humid, as expected.
_____________________________

Although the weather is clearing from the dark skies, there is no light in the forecast for the political atmosphere.

The CNMI is facing a looming disaster--the shutdown of the government.

How did this happen?
Last November 2009, the voters passed an initiative HLI 16-11 to amend the Constitution. You can read some information about the original initiative at the MLSC Day In Court Blog. The pros and cons that were provided for voter education at the time are here.

But the best information is to read the actual HLI 16-11initiative that was approved by the voters. This shows the relevant language that was adopted into our Constitution, the language that is now the governing law of the CNMI.

This amendment requires a balanced budget by October 1 and, in its absence, prohibits funding government operations by continuing resolution. Rather, only "essential services" are to be funded until a balanced budget is passed. Those "essential services" are to be determined "by law." And the most telling provision is that the Legislators' salaries are to be suspended starting October 1 until they pass a balanced budget.

Who is responsible for this fiasco?
The initiative to amend the CNMI Constitution was introduced by Congressmen Diego T. Benavente, Joseph P. Deleon Guerrero, Edward T. Salas, and Ray Yumul.

I don't know who in the House voted for it, but it was passed by the House.
I don't know who in the Senate voted for it, but it was passed by the Senate.

And then it went to the people for a vote in the general election.
I don't know who voted for it among the general population; I only know I didn't vote for it. But it passed.


Why didn't our Legislators pass a balanced budget?
This of course is the big question.
The Legislative highlights on the Senate page was last updated 4/16/2010 (as of this writing) and it shows that Senator Pete Reyes had, by then, introduced a resolution SR 17-12 asking the Governor to convene an economic summit to avoid a government shut-down come October. I have no idea what happened to that resolution.

Other action at the time included a resolution to honor Bishop Tomas Camacho and opposing a proposed casino in Saipan.

The House website hasn't been updated since March 26, 2010 (as of this writing). Nothing on it even mentions budget concerns. There was, however, a standing committee report on a bill to amend the CNMI law about immigration. The report was adopted by the House.

On August 18, the House finally passed a budget bill--one that increased their discretionary spending while dishing out a 16 hour/payday cut to most other government workers. HB 17-96.

There was an instant uproar and silent protests. House Speaker Froilan Tenorio told the Senate it would be okay to change the budget if they increased his leadership account. He also urged them to pass the casino legislation.

On September 6, the Senate voted a budget that amended the House version--cutting discretionary spending and restoring 8 hours of the regular workday to government employees.

On September 14, the House rejected the Senate's amendments of the budget bill.

The House and Senate picked their respective teams for a conference committee, with just 10 days left to resolve the budget crisis. But the Senate walked out of the conference committee efforts because the House negotiating team is insisting on using the need for a budget to get the Senate to approve the casino legislation. They Senate is willing to reconvene, with 5 days left before October 1, provided the House returns in good faith, takes casino legislation off the table, and agrees to open the sessions to the public.


From all of this, I conclude:
1. The House delayed passing a bill until it was very late. The fact that the budget bill is the 96th bill introduced, instead of the first, shows that the House does not have its priorities in order.

2. The House leadership is pushing for casinos in Saipan. They don't care about a balanced budget. They don't care if the people suffer. Someone wants to get some graft and kickback into their pocket. Even the provision to up their discretionary funds and the demand to increase the leadership account are plain abuse of fiscal responsibility. It's all about corruption and greed.

3. The Senate is trying to do the right thing. They have been paying attention, even though appropriation bills must originate in the House. But they can't do it alone.

We're not going to have a budget anytime soon.

So what happens now?

The government operations can only pay for "essential services" as those have been determined by law. Although the Governor wants to be "the law" it seems that the Constitution actually calls for law in the usual sense. So the bill passed by the Senate defining what is "essential services" is another step in the right direction. A House bill has also been introduced, but no action taken on it. Given how irresponsible the House has been in the budget process, it doesn't seem likely it will be be enacted. The Speaker Lang Tenorio is noncommital on the proposals about "essential services", meaning nothing is going to happen.

Another thing about the effect of the constitution, neither the House nor the Senate members should get any salary at all after October 1 until a budget is passed. The Constitution suspends payment to them. Even if they declare themselves "essential services" they can't override the Constitution. It is clear:

"...if the Legislature does not pass a balanced budget by October 1st, the Legislators' salaries shall be suspended until such time that a balanced budget is passed by the Legislature."

This is small comfort to all of the people who will be out of work and without pay. The House and Senate members deserve the lack of payment; no one else does.

What can we do?
It's not too late for the people to do something. We can't write and pass the budget ourselves, but we can demand that our representatives do their jobs.

It is far more responsible to have only 8 hour cuts for workers and reduced discretionary funds for the Legislators than to have 16 hour cuts for workers and an INCREASE in discretionary funds for these politicians.


So: Tell your House members to come to their senses and agree to the Senate amendments. Call them at work; call them at home; visit them personally. Put the pressure on.

Or else, come October 1, it will be a difficult start to FY 2012 for all of us.

Minor Musings on Budget Matters

It was hot today in paradise, even with mild breezes. The first hint of orange blossoms on the Flame Trees.
___________________________________

Austerity-what a nightmare. Tonight there is a public hearing in Kagman--conducted by Rota Sen. Jovita Taimanao. (I can't make it-other commitments to my daughter.)

The administration/and the Covenant legislators propose a plan that will lose the PSS $16million dollars immediately and cause other harm. In order to save about $4 to $5million.

Senator Paul Manglona proposes an end to protections for governor, legislators and judicial salaries--but such proposal couldn't take effect against any one already in their position during this present term.

Meanwhile, legislators are getting $4,200/day for "subsistence" pay when they have to be on another island other than their home for legislative sessions.

Meanwhile, legislators are getting paid as full-time employees, when we could easily get by with a part-time legislature.

Meanwhile-does anyone remember? The Fitial administration may still be paying $50,000/month to a lawfirm, Jenner and Block, to fight the CNRA, so we can "appeal" Judge Friedman's decision.

The Fitial Administration's claim for austerity is a sham.

Short Takes

The tangentangen is full of brown, crackling, dried seed pods. Breadfruit trees are laden with huge ripe fruits. The nights are still cool and comfortable for sleeping, but the days have become hot and close--the kind of heat that leeches the energy out of you and makes you want to take a nap.
__________________________________________

Immigration -- There may be a court challenge to the CNMI's recent enactment, P.L. 17-1. If you are an alien in the CNMI or an employer of foreign workers in the CNMI, and you want to join forces in challenging the law, you might see a lawyer now. Low income persons can apply for help at MLSC. Others with middle or more income could check private lawyers like Mark Hanson, Rob Torres, Steve Woodruff, Colin Thompson, Richard Pierce (or any attorney of your choice).

CNMI politics--Still as disruptive as ever. The AG's office seems to be an arm of the Governor's Office, rather than an office serving the interests of the people. I now favor an independently elected AG. I worried that this would only make the office more political; but it now seems to be so political that "more" is impossible. I worried that legal work is not well-understood by the community and the opinions publicly stated would often lead to unconstitutional and unfair results; but the office is being used for unconstitutional and unfair results in the hands of the Governor, without accountability, so the people may be a better choice! I realize that the people re-elected the Governor, so there is little likelihood of real improvement with an elected AG; but it is remotely possible that such election would provide a measure of independence that is currently not present, and that would be healthy.

The CNMI budget--We're going to see the new CNMI Constitutional provision in play this year, and it won't be pretty. Governor Fitial will have a proposed budget by April 1. But the pressure on the Legislature to pass a budget by October 1 may force concessions no one likes.

Some ideas for what our CNMI Legislature could be focusing on now:
1. We have too many government employees--and the cuts should be at the top first, where expense is greatest. Constitutional protections may apply to those in office, but if our CNMI Congress would pass legislation now that lowers these salaries, we will at least see savings in the future. Do it!
2. They could change to a part-time Legislature. And eliminate the municipal councils. We don't need so much government. We can't afford so much government.
3. They could LEGISLATE a list of essential public services, so that the Governor cannot unilaterally decide who gets money and who doesn't based on his own preferences, all under the guise of what is essential, if and when the budget doesn't pass. No more continuing resolution.

We want a rational process, not unmitigated and unrestricted politics.

Community--The SSHS Manta Ray Band concerts on 3/26 and 3/27 were a success. Great performances, reasonably good attendance, successful fundraising. Just one small complaint: fundraising should be transparent. When you've set a specific goal ($140,000) for your trip to Carnegie Hall, you should be telling and showing exactly how close you are to the goal, on a regular basis. You shouldn't dodge specific questions like 'how much more do you need to reach your goal?'with vague assertions like 'we're close.'

Voting on Initiatives-one by one-#2

House Legislative Initiative 16-11 (H.L.I. 16-11) Amends Article III, section 9 (a) of the CNMI Constitution. Introduced by Diego T. Benavente, Joseph P. Deleon Guerrero, Ed Salas and Ray Yumul.

It makes the following changes:
1. deletes the language that provides for budget allocation at the same level as the previous year when no balanced budget is approved before the first day of the fiscal year.

2. provides that no money shall be drawn for government operations without a budget;

3. makes an exception to the no money rule for "certain government services and employees ...as provided by law... essential to the health safety, and welfare of the people... and to protect against damage to and destruction of property."

4. mandates that the Governor submit a balanced budget proposal to the Legislature by 4/1; and suspends his salary if he doesn't and until he does'

5. suspends the legislature's salary if they don't pass a balanced budget by 10/1 until they do pass one.


I've got to admit to having mixed feelings about this proposal. And to feeling that this type of issue is beyond my ability to figure out. Liberal minds differ on the need for this type of "balanced budget" requirement for state governments.

It seems extreme. It would also require quick legislative action to determine what essential services would remain in effectin the absence of a budget.

Is maintaining property a call to keep DPW workers on staff? What about parks and rec people? And the guys who hang out at the Multi-Purpose Center, sweeping the parking lot and making sure the building is clean?

Would the need to meet the deadline add more pressure for Saipan Senators to cave in to demands from the minority populations on Tinian and Rota?

It seems we have money problems, but don't we need more open government and transparency to see where the money is going, how much we've got from all sources, and some prosecutions for mishandling of funds? Would these tools provide the benefits we need?

Or do we really need this more drastic approach.

Part of me thinks the salaries should be held when people aren't doing their jobs. But what if the decision to vote against a proposed budget is made in good conscience?

I'm undecided on this H.L.I. 16-11.

EDIT: There is no link to the CEC pamphlet on pros and cons in this blog post because the CEC site doesn't have it up; their link is mistakenly tied to S.L.I. 16-11, not H.L.I. 16-11. But you can find the pros and cons for this H.L.I. 16-11 in the CEC's Voters Manual, at page 3.

CNMI FY 2010 Budget

It seems that the Legislature has adopted a new method for the budgeting process--one that starts with a spending cap, so there is some basic agreement by all, and then moves to the final budgeting/parceling out the money.

The House finally introduced the budget bill, H.B. 16-275 this week for FY 2010 (beginning on October 1, 2009). Although this is a very late introduction, they've almost made up for the problem.

They have now passed it.

It pares down the budget from last year, but without following Fitial's plan for employee austerity Fridays.

It also provides for some payments to the NMI Retirement Fund, as required by the recent court ruling. Regardless of who is to blame for the mess, it's important that the mess be cleaned up, and this budget bill seems to begin that process.

The prompt passage by the House still gives the Senate a little time to review and vote on the budget, but not much. Let's hope the Senate acts quickly and responsibly.

341. Some Refreshing Perspectives

Senator Frica Pangelinan has a good commentary in today's papers. She discusses the incongruity of the Governor's statements (first blaming fiscal problems on the lack of a budget and now on the passage of a budget), his willingness to use deficit spending, and her view of the importance of looking to the future and embracing needed changes.

My favorite part of her opinion:

So, do we continue to desperately scramble to preserve the two-tiered system that crowds our government offices with personnel, and our private sector with guest workers? Do we keep fighting minimum wage increases? Do we continue to resist a “federalization” that can open up jobs for locals in the private sector?

I say no.

There's also another good letter in the Tribune, from Jim Rayphand (and at present no link available to it). He makes the point that age is not the yardstick for measuring who has beneficial attitudes for government service, that the young as well as the old can be wedded to a system of perks and privilege, and that other people of all ages can embrace transparency in government.

There is growing talk about the younger generation of upstarts causing the tremor that is to be a cleaner, more open government. The fact is, age has nothing to do with the movement in that direction--there are just as many, if not more, young knuckleheads as there are old ones. Since ever since, numerous people in the government have been beating their heads against the same guarded walls of territorialiasm and other hollow-blocks of self-inflated egos. The endeavor is not new, but if the younger generations are to make any significant headway in the quest for better governance, they will need to connect with and build on existing foundations from the inside out...

He votes for transparency and shares a bit about the recent problems of the CNMI Council on Developmental Disabilities.

And so, kudos to both Frica and Jim. Although there is much work to be done, there is also some progress, some bits of sanity and good governance cropping up in our CNMI local government terrain.

339. News Flash! New Growth in Backbones...

House votes to override Governor's veto of budget. Just heard.
More details to come.

EDIT: Some details.

14 voted for the override--the same 12 who previously voted for the override, plus David Apatang (who had been absent before) and Edwin Aldan (who had voted no on the override before).

P.S.
I forgot to say this--and perhaps it is the most important thing to say--thanks! thanks! THANKS! to all 14 House members.

And of course, to our Senators who previously voted to override the budget veto.

This may not be the best budget. It may not even be a good budget. But at least it is a written, considered, and legislated budget. Yay!


Second edit:
I also heard (and Ed reports this, too) that Stanley Torres voted "no" on the budget override this time. The report I heard is that he mentioned Lil Hammerhead's blog figured in his final decision... I'm not sure how--perhaps he wants to give Lil more fodder, or he enjoys the attention, or he just doesn't like being pressured even by public opinion. Guess I'll have to wait for the newspaper editions, though, to see his exact quote.

I'm still waiting to hear who the other 3 "no" votes were.


Final edit:
Per Ed at Marianas Pride in the comments, voting NO--Oscar Babauta, Joseph James N. Camacho, Victor Hocog, and Stanley Torres.

337. Oh, for a Good Lame Excuse

Voting No on the override of the Governor's veto of the budget:

Republican
Joseph James Norita Camacho--no reason given*; he'd voted for this budget when it was originally passed.

Stanley T. Torres--abstained; "I was not ready to vote yet because I just got in when they had a roll call. I would have voted yes to the override."

Democrat
Justo S. Quitugua--no reason given; he'd voted for this budget when it was originally passed.


Covenant
Edwin P. Aldan-no reason given; he was absent when the budget was originally passed.

Oscar M. Babauta--he'd voted against the budget when it passed because he supports Governor Fitial's call for austerity Fridays, so presumably he objects to the override for the same reason. He also said, when questioned about his reasons, that he recommended that the House of Representatives "move on" to more pressing concerns.

Raymond D. Palacios--no reason given; he'd voted for this budget when it was originally passed.


Independent
Victor B. Hocog--he voted for the budget when it passed, but voted against the budget veto override because the Governor telephoned him threatening to furlough contractual workers, especially in Rota and Tinian.

David M. Apatang--absent; he'd voted for this budget when it was originally passed.



Some thoughts:

1. Rep. Babauta--There are no more pressing concerns. We need a budget immediately. We need to stop discretionary spending, stop uncontrolled deficit spending, stop irresponsible-no account needed spending. Your support of austerity Fridays is a sham to hide the fact that you really support this governor having unlimited power. A budget, even without austerity Fridays, puts in more fiscal controls and restraints than the phantom austerity Fridays you pretend to hold out for.

2. Rep. Torres--Why were you late? You needed to be ready and present from the start. You have a responsibility and need to live up to it. This is probably the lamest excuse from a legislator to date--and that's really saying something given all the lame excuses we've heard over the past year from you and your colleagues.

3. Rep. Hocog--Where is your backbone? Stand up to the Governor and vote for what is right. The CNMI needs a budget. You are concerned about contractual employees in Rota. Why does the CNMI have so many government employees who are not civil service? Why do we have so many ordinary citizens in political appointments and contractual jobs that are subject to political pressure tactics? We cannot be hostages to our leaders. And you, as a "leader" should not be bowing to political pressure and caving in to threats of job losses when you actually supported this budget to begin with.

4. Rep. Camacho--Although you gave no excuse on the record in the House, you explain your reasons on your website. Basically, you say your change of mind relates to separation of powers, because the budget contains a provision that requires Legislative approval of any and all new hires. You say you originally voted for the budget because this provision can be viewed as merely ministerial (an administrative function), but now that the Governor says it violates the Constitution, you must respect the Governor's interpretation.

This is a lame excuse. The budget as passed--HB 16-213--contains at sec. 801 a "severability" clause, basically saying that if any one provision is unconstitutional, it shall be severed from the law and the rest remain in effect.

You should have voted to override the veto. Then we would have a budget. If the provision is challenged and the court rules it unconstitutional (neither a sure bet), we still have a budget and the constitution is upheld by severing it from the rest of the law.

Stop trying to confuse the electorate with make-believe justifications. This is nothing but a lame excuse and a poor one at that. I suspect this excuse masks other political motivations. Be honest with us.

5. Rep. Quitugua--What does it mean to be a member of the Democrat party? What possible explanation could you reasonably give for voting against the veto override? I suspect your vote has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with your personal politics and limited vision.

6. Rep. Palacios--I understand that you voted this time with your party. I don't agree with you or your party. I hope Covenant loses resoundingly in the next election.

7. Rep. Apatang--Why did you miss this session? I understand that you may be sick. You didn't look good today when I saw you at the memorial service for the Honorable Marty W. K. Taylor. I hope you get well soon.


WE STILL NEED A BUDGET!

328. Fiscal Matters

Today's headline is that Governor Fitial vetoed the budget again. Of course he did--it doesn't give him what he wants. He wants unlimited reprogramming authority. He wants austerity Fridays. He wants as little oversight as possible and as much power in his hands as he can get.

The current situation gives him room to maneuver. He can claim severe economic crisis to deny those he doesn't like, and still pay huge attorney fees for a federalization lawsuit, manage subsidies for "volunteers" and do other perky things.

A real budget, backed by a legislature doing its job and keeping tabs on how the money is spent, could be a set-back.

Will our Legislature have the intelligence and back-bone to override Governor Fitial's veto? Senator Frica Pangelinan seems supportive of an override. Her comments shed light on some issues and help decode some of the political statements--the Legislature's budget does make cuts, but in a more thoughtful way, a more specific way, than across the board austerity Fridays.

Representative Tina Sablan seems ready, too. Her comments point to the hypocrisy of the current situation, where some agencies continue to have fluff jobs at an endless rate of growth, for friends of the governor.

But this Legislature contains many of the same men who have failed to protect our resources, have failed to pass a budget for several years, have failed to find a way to stave off the spread of third-world conditions here.

This is the same Legislature that failed to override the veto in January 2009.
Voting against the override in January 2009:

David M. Apatang
Oscar Babauta
Joseph James N. Camacho
Francisco Dela Cruz
Raymond D. Palacios
Justo S. Quitugua
Ramon A. Tebuteb
Stanley Torres

And not voting (absent)

Edwin P. Aldan
Victor Hocog

You can verify the list at J.J. Camacho's website--just look for the override vote on HB-16-169.

We need to AT LEAST take one step at a time, in the right direction. We need to do what is right.

I applaud the Saipan Tribune for its daily front page ticker on how long we've gone without a budget. I applaud the 10 Representatives who voted to override the veto last month. I applaud the Senators who speak out on the issue.

This is a very important issue. We need a budget. We need a budget. We need a budget.

We need our Legislature to override the Governor's veto, if that's what it takes to get a budget. And that is what it takes. Otherwise, the "budget" the Governor wants is nothing more than carte blanche-not a budget but a free rein.

Some of our elected leaders are making noises that they may actually override the veto this time. But of course, others still want to support our Governor! What about supporting the people? What about doing what is right? What about having some guts?

I agree (for once) with the comments by Heinz Hofschneider. We need a budget more than we need endless debate on the benefits and detriments of austerity Fridays.

Override the veto.

(And if you want to fix the US budget problems at the same time, try this budget game and learn something, too.

4-day Work Week?

Governor Fitial is proposing across-the-board cuts in government employment. He proposes a 4 day work week, which he wants to get with Legislative approval, but which he will implement in other ways, if he doesn't get such sanction. Without congressional support, the cuts would likely effect fewer employees than with it, but the cuts will definitely be felt.

Ed has already published a critical post on his blog, Marianas Pride.

I do not think our Governor has ever given us the full picture on revenues, so that our Legislature cannot realistically assess the situation and plan a proper budget. I say this because, despite the dire situation as insisted by our Governor, he had no difficulty coming up wiht $400,000 for the federalization lawsuit. That is not chump change.

I suspect the money comes from class-action settlements, or some other source of revenue that has not been disclosed in the projected CNMI revenues for Legislative use in budgeting.

I think our Legislators should be actively supporting Tina Sablan's efforts to find out how the federalization lawsuit is being funded. And they should be demanding an accounting of all money, no matter how it finds its ways into the government till. And I think the Governor should not be able to spend money without Legislative authorization.

But all of that said, I think we need to assess the idea of a 4-day work week independently of the proponent, independently of the professed reason for it. I'm not fan of Governor Fitial, but that doesn't mean I am going to automatically disagree with everything he says and does.

For example, in the U.S., about 16% of city governments have 4-day work week options. City government agencies in Maryland, Indiana, Oklahoma, Washington state,and Arizona have started using the 4 day work week. Utah has recently mandated the 4-day work week on a state-wide basis, according to a July 2008 USA news report. Closer to home, Hawaii has also experimented with the 4-day work week.

What positives come from a 4-day work week? When utilized on a large scale, the effect is staggering. The most notable is an improvement in our "carbon footprint" as fewer people are commuting to work. You can read some of the math computations and information in this article about 16 reasons in support of the 4-day work week.

What about the personal loss of income from reduced hours? Some of the 4-day work week programs still provide for 40 hour weeks, just divided up into 4 days-so workers would work 10 hours/day rather than 8. But some of the proposals, on the table or implemented, reduces hours and contend that 4 days/32 hours produces the same amount of productivity over time as a 5-day week of 40 hours, because workers become more productive with the freedom to have time off. And greater productivity, greater savings on energy, means that employers can actually pay more per hour.

For sure, there is not universal acclaim for the 4-day work week. The federal OPM opposes the notion. And in Oregon, there is strong objection to a 4-day work week being used in the public school system.

But the 4-day work week is a very happening topic now, with both private businesses and small governments opting for this choice, despite the concerns.

While the debate over a shorter-work week raged in Europe in the 1990's, it's being discussed and implemented now in New Zealand, and Great Britain and elsewhere around the globe. It's even made it to you tube!



Should we jump on the bandwagon? Well, no. But should we consider and research and discuss the idea seriously?

I think so.

jmho.