How to use this Page

UPDATE: This morning at 8 AM, Joe told me there was a crew in Kagman. The implication was they'd come to San Vicente. At noon, Bill said the Kagman crew had nothing to do with San Vicente, but there was a crew in Dandan. They had two more jobs and then would head to San Vicente. We were on the schedule. At 4 PM I stopped by my house--no power. I called again. Bill said the crew went from Dandan to Papago. He had no idea why they skipped San Vicente. He does not have their schedule and wishes he did. He had no idea when a CUC crew would get to San Vicente to fix the power outage.

So here's my take on this--there's no reason Papago rates over San Vicente. They had to drive PAST us to go to that other job. That's not efficient, nor is it fair. So it's either politics or poor management.

And the fact that the work crews schedules aren't shared with the trouble desk is puzzling. The trouble desk not only takes calls, but gives out information. How can they when they're not clued in, either.

I think it's safe to say that CUC could needs better management, systems and protocols and definitely better public relations via the trouble desk.

My power was restored sometime last night, by 9:30 PM. And the CUC trouble desk called to confirm that I did indeed have power.

What a relief.

Today's Tribune reports that CUC says it had 150 homes without power from the storm. That seems like quite a large number, given the fact that there really was no storm--it never hit Saipan, it did little damage otherwise, and was nothing much more than some brisk wind and rain.

It also means that 150 homes, with more people inside those homes--so it's safe to say at least 300 people were effected by this problem.

CUC needs a better storm plan.

They are being water boarded in Guam until they talk. And they will talk.

Thanks for asking - I just posted.

I was also turned off by the closing arguments of the defense team, and so were a number of people I spoke to.

Aside from the things you mentioned in closing arguments, I found it extremely arrogant for the defense to claim that "making a lot of money is not a crime." Correction. Making a lot of money illegally through a scam like the ones they concocted is a crime.

There are several questions that remain unanswered Jane, and I hope you can shed some light since this deals with CNMI law:

1. Is Tim fired from his job as Lt. Governor? If not, will he continue to collect a paycheck if he decides to appeal?

2. Will he still continue to enjoy the perks of being the CNMI's Lt. Governor, such as free electricity, courtesy of us CNMI taxpayers?

Great post Jane!

Thanks for the comment, Ed.

I don't know the answers with legal citations to your questions off the top of my head. But as I understand it, there is no automatic "firing" from the elected job. The Legislature, I think, has to impeach and vote for conviction for him to be ousted.

So until that happens, he would enjoy all the benefits of the position, as well as remain responsible for the duties.

Constitutionally he no longer meets the basic requirements to to be LT. He has been convicted of a crime.

You are correct, Jane. The disqualification is not self-executing. It requires resignation or impeachment.

The OPA, OAG, IRS, FBI, USAO, and jurors have all done their jobs. Now it is time for the House to step up to the plate.

i too thought the closing arguments were racist and just irritatingly assinine. the analogies they chose to highlight their arguments were so lame.

Writer, your attempt to turn the verdict into a validation, even a celebration, of all things federal rings hollow.

Not "everything federal is bad," and, so far as I know, no one has ever claimed that it is. Many things are (probably most), but the jury trial system is not one of them. Why not? Because it is a system that trusts and empowers the local people.

Remember: The federal government did not convict Tim. He was convicted by a local jury of his peers. If the jury had decided to let him walk, there was nothing the feds could have done about it. Indeed, he would not have been tried in the first place had he not been indicted by a local grand jury.

All the feds did was present their case, and leave it to the locals to make the decisions, which are then binding on the feds. It is a case of total federal trust in, and deference to, local judgment.

As such, it is the direct opposite of the federal approach to such things as the immigration issue, which is characterized by total distrust of local judgment, and no deference to it whatsoever.

Cactus,

I don't think the outcome is a validation of all things federal and that was not my intent in the paragraph where I criticized the closing arguments attacking the federal government.

I agree with you that not everything about the federal government is wonderful and, as with any government, we must be vigilant to keep checks on the power it wields.

So, I do agree with your assessment of the jury system that lauds it as power in the hands of the people. The jury system is a check on the power of the government, whether local or federal, and democratizes justice.

I disagree with your assumption, though, that the federal government is not "us" and is somehow a foreign power at odds with our local people. The federal government is as much our government as the local government is; when it acts, it is our action.

We need greater participation in it--the vote for President, for example. But we need to own it as ours.

In this case, "we" did things right. "We" prosecuted government officials and others for crimes. "We" presented the evidence. "We" determined the outcome.

We, as both federal and local, citizens, are managing our justice.

And in this case, I feel happy about the outcome.

Writer, I agree with your turns of phrase, but I do not see how they line up with the facts.

I believe, as you apparently do, that any government should be an extension of the people -- i.e., that it should be "us". But how exactly is the federal government "us"? I could see it if you called it "good" or "benevolent" or "stable," but that is not the same thing as being "us." How can its actions be "our" actions if we do not elect it?

And I agree completely that "we must be vigilant to keep checks on the power it wields." But, in your view, what checks do we here in the CNMI have on the power it wields?

Cactus:

You are really reaching with your continual attempts to cram every issue into your Federal/Local conflict obsession. Surely you can embrace some other, more nuanced world view?

You set up a rather feeble "straw man," claiming that Writer saw the verdict as a "celebration of all things federal," and then knocked it down. I did not interpret her comments the way you did.

Your argument--that a federal prosecution is really local, since it depends on a jury of local peers, and that therefore, the feds didn't really do anything but trust the local mango--is really not apt, imho. If the FBI and the US Attorney were not willing to bring charges, neither the grand jury nor the petit jury would have had the opportunity to consider them.

It also appears that you want to have it both ways: when the feds do something you don't like, they are despots and oppressors, but when they do something good, they are really just local guys and the feds had nothing to do with it.

But the larger issue is that "us" and "them" labels aren't really helpful in discussing the complex issues we face as citizens. We are all Americans AND we are CNMI residents. E pluribus unum, remember? We all pay the same power bills, and suffer through the same blackouts. We all owe a debt to the courageous CUC employees who did the right thing by blowing the whistle on the Rydlyme scheme, to the jurors (both grand and petit), and to Eric O'Malley for a job well done.

We are all in this together, cactus. The local government has had had problems enforcing many of our laws. I, for one, am happy the federal prosecutor's office is there as one of the "checks and balances" giving locals a helping hand in investigating and prosecuting high-ranking officials.

You are right that the feds CAN play a useful, helpful role in the CNMI. Federal independence from local political/personal issues can truly come in handy at times, and can help set the stage for getting things accomplished that otherwise might not be. I think that is what happened in this case.

It is precisely BECAUSE it is POSSIBLE to do these kinds of things RIGHT -- possible to have a local-federal relationship that is healthy, fair and beneficial, possible to create a new and true kind of "us" -- that it is so frustrating to see the feds constantly eschewing any such creative and salutary solutions in favor of an approach that is reactionary, visionless, top-down, and "us-vs-them" in the bluntest and crudest way possible -- i.e.: "we command, they obey."

Excellent points!!! I forgot about PSS. Thanks for the analogy Jane!

Thanks, Ed. A compliment from you on my CUC rant? I feel honored!

Declare a state of emergency for the umpteenth time and state that the generator can explode at any time and peoples lives are in danger.. however, when Pete A. seeks assistance from the feds using the argument that we have a catastrophic emergency.. well, suddenly the Governor feels there is none?

Don't they realize the folks will notice these blatant double standards? They probably just don't care.

I had a hard time believing this actually. Someone whose been involved in politics for so long, who's held the highest offices, who's father and family has played a significant role in the development of this government and many of its agencies.. practicing petty crime. This, in the end, is really just a petty crime. To me.. that's even sadder. These four people probably pulled in somewhere around $200,000 in profit after the purchase price and shipping. What a sad and sordid little scheme.

This isn't a new scheme either. Remember Kumoi's "Heavy Equipment Repair".. well not really Kumoi's, it was registered under another family members name. Only problem was.. the business was repairing primarily CUC equipment!

I am really saddened. As much as I disagree with his politics.. to discover that an elected leader of such status and with such history is no better than a thief, in some way degrades the integrity of our entire community.

But he has not yet been proven guilty.. so I won't delve too deeply into my realm of feelings regarding this.

Perhaps I'm more jaded than you, Lil.

I tend to think that nepotism and corruption are practiced nearly everywhere in the CNMI, and most often by high-status families in leadership positions.

Every sole source contract sends up a red flag to me. Every government deal made to purchase from a business owned by a family member of an influential politician or the decision-maker himself makes me wonder if it's a good deal for necessary goods or services.

It's a small community and of course there are family ties through and through. It's good that family is strong and important. But it's not good that family takes precedence over public service for those who are in public service. And maybe not even for others...

And in the nearly 24 years I've been here, I've seen that preference for family instead of the public good over and over again. From voting choices made not for the candidate whose policies reflect a voter's belief or whose stand on issues is good for all, but voting for whoever is in your family that will be able to hire you or get you benefits from government agencies; to hiring choices made by the "public servants"-hiring who in the family voted for you and will keep you in office, who will carry out your orders without too many questions, who will scratch your back if you scratch theirs; from government business for profit-politicians pushing for poker machines so they can make a bundle, touting construction contracts with special rules that only their family's company's can meet, opposing sound ideas like the national marine monument because it limits options of family & business associates to be greedy; to misplaced loyalty that results in vindictive, personal sabotage-declaring opponents as persona non grata, writing false and defamatory letters in the newspapers, making decisions in the workplace on personalities, not principles.

I noticed in the newspaper that many of Tim's supporters showed up to "lend support" to him and his family. But who was there to lend support to US, to the community who suffers?

You say this was a petty crime. The pay-off may have been relatively small for those involved, but that doesn't make the crime "small."

Corruption doesn't start and end with one deal. It's a cancer that spreads and corrupts and goes through generations, distorting all institutions and defrauding us of one of the most basic essentials of a decent life-honesty.

I may have misused "petty". It's a very serious thing.. but I see it as "petty", because it is such a small dirty thing to ruin your life over, and harm your community over. I do agree with you that it is indeed very very serious.

Your piece is right on.

I have taught on Tinian and Saipan and it is always amazing to me how there is always one student who acutally vocalizes that it doesn't matter that he doesn't do well in school, he will get a "high paying" job in the government from his uncle/dad/god father etc. I have had students tell me that point blank.