How to use this Page

You can get the election results here. I'm just glad the Saipan Casino Act went down in flames.

Angelo has a discussion going on about the effect of blogs on the vote. I'm sure others are licking their wounds or celebrating in style.

As for me, I'm enjoying the relaxed post-election atmosphere. The tension from the uncertainty has drained away. Good or bad, whether you like the results or not, we now know what we'll be living with for the next few years.

I personally was surprised that so many incumbents won re-election. And I would like to hear what others think is the reason?

Do we not blame them for the present predicament? Are we still having candidates win based on family size? Are the incumbents who won somehow perceived as different than the others? What's up?

Display Comments Add a Comment

I hope that the Saipan Casino Act will not get the 2/3rds majority of qualified voters' votes in the upcoming election.

But I have a question about the mechanics of the Act. Call it professional curiousity. I haven't been able to figure out what is supposed to happen in regards to the stock if the proposal becomes law. The proposed law, as written, seems confused and incomplete.

Article III, Section 2 says:

(a) The commission, upon this Act becoming law, shall issue the casino license only to the Northern Marianas Descent Investment Corporation (NMDIC). The license shall be perpertual.

(i) The NMDIC shall be a profit corporation established in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(ii) The incorporators, directors, officers and shareholders of the NMDIC shall be persons of NMD.
(iii) NMDIC shall issue shares of common stock duly subscribed in Five Hundred Dollar (US $500.00) par value per share and preferred stocks duly subscribed in one dollar ($1.00) par value per share to natural NMD persons only.
(iv) No natural person of NMD shall own more than one (1) share of common stocks and twenty-five thousand (25,000) of preferred shares.
(v) Any natural person of NMD, who is eighteen (18) years of age or older may subscribe to only one share of common stock and not more than twenty-five thousand (25,000) preferred shares of NMDIC, and pay for such share in an installment amount to be determined under a share subscription agreement with NMDIC. Each common stock shareholder shall be entitled to one vote during shareholders meeting or other events and business of NMDIC. However, for the purpose of computing, declaring and paying dividends per share to be paid, it shall be based only on fully subscribed and paid share.
(vi) Authorized Stocks. NMDIC shall authorize number of capital stocks to meet the current and growing NMD population in the Commonwealth pursuant to this Subsection.

So my first and basic question is what happens to a person's stock when he or she dies? Can it only be inherited by someone who is also NMD? What if all heirs already have their own one share? Or there is no NMD heir? Is it bought back and the money paid for it inherited? Does the share disappear?

The whole thing about the number of stocks also seems financially troublesome. Is there a fixed number of shares, open for purchase, or is it that all NMDs have a right to purchase one share of common stock?

It seems as if any and all NMDs have a right to buy into the NMDIC. It seems as if the number of shares will constantly fluctuate and increase with population. But if that's the case, then as NMDs reach age 18, they can automatically purchase a share of common stock, constantly diluting the shares of those who already have one.

Or will it be that as fewer and fewer people meet the 25% NMD blood requirement that there will be fewer and fewer who are eligible to own the stocks?

On a different note, and issue: the people who control the NMDIC can let friends and family have a share without paying, to give those friends and family a vote at (important) meetings. Do they have to let all NMDs have the same access to an unpaid share? Isn't it interesting that people can vote without paying for their share?



Anyone with ideas, feel free to clue me in.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Greg Sablan sent me this with a request to post on the blog. So here goes.
*****************************************

The Commonwealth Election Commission has received reports that there are individuals informing our citizens and registered voters that a “yes” vote means “no” for some of the questions on the November 3, 2007 general election ballot.



There are seven (7) questions for Rota and for Saipan and the Islands North of Saipan, and six (6) for Tinian and Aguiguan, that require a yes or no vote. The questions are all found on the right-hand side of the ballot and they are for the four (4) judicial retention questions and the two (2) House Legislative Initiatives and the Saipan Casino Act for Saipan and the Islands North of Saipan and the Rota Casino Act of 2007 for Rota.



For the record, a “yes” vote means that a voter is approving the question, whether it is for the initiative or for the retention of the judicial officers. A “no” vote is a vote in opposition, a disapproval, of the question.



Thus, if a voter votes “yes” on the Saipan Casino Act, for example, that voter is voting to approve the initiative. A “no” vote means the voter is not in support of the initiative.



The same goes for all the questions on the right-hand side of the general election ballot.



Anyone having more information about this issue is asked to please report the matter to the Office of the Attorney General, the Public Auditor or to the Commonwealth Election Commission.



Sincerely yours,



GREGORIO C. SABLAN

Executive Director

COMMONWEALTH ELECTION COMMISSION

******************************************

Whoever is spreading the nonsense (about a yes vote meaning no) must not think our CNMI voters are very smart. Or else they're just desperate. I trust that most (all?) blog readers already know this, but just in case, or in case you find someone else asking about this, you can say you've read the official answer--yes means yes and no means no--and give a straight answer (without thinking it's a joke).

Display Comments Add a Comment

One last --easy-- post on the Saipan Casino Act initiative.

EDIT: I haven't found the Saipan Casino Initiative on-line and can't link to it. But if you want a copy, let me know. I'm willing to make a few copies and pass them along.

ON REGULATING CASINOS
At the debate, I complained that there was nothing in the bill that provided for INDEPENDENT regulators. Paduna said I was wrong (well, he SHOUTED that I was wrong, wrong, wrong). See if you can find any of these things:

1. a requirement that the commissioners NOT have any interest in the license-holder, casino operators or other gambling/casino interests.

2. a requirement that the commissioners NOT come directly from employment at the casinos.

3. a requirement that the commissioners NOT be able to go directly from their job as commissioners into the casino industry.

4. a requirement that the commissioners NOT have close family members with an interest in the license-holder, casino operators or other gambling/casino intersts.

5. a requirement that the commissioners NOT have close family members working in the
casino industry.


You won't. The SCA would invite the casino industry into Saipan WITHOUT INDEPENDENT REGULATION. And without independent regulation, the casino industry will be more likely to be corrupt, have illegal and unethical practices, and fail to pay over the benefits we're supposed to reap.


ON THE SCA'S MONOPOLY
At the debate, the pro side insisted the Saipan Casino Act does not create a monopoly. They did this in two ways--1) saying because all indigenous could buy a share in the license-holder, there was no monopoloy; and 2) saying the indigenous compnay was only a "regulatory" monopoly.

1. See if you can find anyplace in the the SCA that permits a second company of all indigenous people to hold a separate license and operate casinos in competition to the first license-holder's casinos.

2. See if you can find anyplace in the SCA that says the indigenous company that will hold the license will be for regulation only and not for profit.

The SCA will grant THE EXCLUSIVE, and perpetual, PRIVILEGE by law to one and only one investment company for the license to operate casinos in Saipan. The company will be a business operating FOR PROFIT. This is a monopoly.

Monopolies do not have the usual market forces to help keep them in line. So not only will there be no independent regulation of the casino industry in Saipan, there will not even be market forces operating to make sure the casinos stay above-board.


AN END TO THE POKER ARCADES
There seems to be a growing notion that the appearance of casinos in Saipan would end the proliferation and prominence of poker arcades in our community. I'm not really sure how this is supposed to happen. (It was repeated over and over that casinos would be well-lit and our local people wouldn't go in there. I'm not sure the reasoning behind that analysis, either, but it would be inconsistent with the idea that demand for the poker-machines would be diverted to the casinos.) The closure of poker arcades hasn't happened in Tinian.

1. Find someplace in the SCA that changes our poker-machine laws.


AND UNTOLD RICHES FOR ALL
One of the lures of the casino industry is the promise of wealth. But the casino industry does not create wealth--it doesn't take some natural resource and make it into a valuable product. It just packages gambling as fun and redistributes existing wealth. For the casino industry to "generate" income, people have to lose. The entire casino industry is premised on this simple fact. The machines and tables and games are all set up so that there are consistently more losers than winners.

One of the myths of the casino promise is that wealthy people play at the casinos and lose income they can afford to do without. This myth isn't entire false, which is why it is so attractive. There are wealthy people who play games at casinos and lose big money.

Will those wealthy people choose to gamble at casinos on Saipan or Tinian, rather than Macau or Singapore? I mean, really, if you were wealthy, where would you choose? I love Saipan and all of the CNMI, and I love it the way it is. I can't see casinos and neon-light as an improvement. And I can't see us ever getting to the point of being legitimately competitive with Macau and Singapore for those wealthy gamblers.

And then there are the others, not so wealthy gamblers, losing money at casinos that they can't afford. These might be tourists or residents. They might be our soldiers and sailors stationed on Guam. Casino income is a reverse or regressive tax--taking money from those most desperate to try their luck.

And while casino owners and operators usually make profits (with the notable exception of the Tinian Dynasty), people in the community don't necessarily see an improved lifestyle. This is reflected in the increase in bankruptcies in communities with casinos. This is reflected in the fact that Las Vegas has the highest rate of home mortgage foreclosures in the country right now, and a depressed housing market.

Just be sure you realize there's NO GUARANTEE in the Saipan Casino Act.


A BETTER WAY
Proponents of the SCA hype casinos as "the only alternative" that Saipan has to get out of the economic slump. This is a lie. Other communities in the past--going back for centuries--have had times where they faced economic hardship. They didn't have to turn to casinos to recover. We don't either.

And just because other communities have chosen to have casinos is no reason for us to do the same. We aren't lemmings. We have a unique culture and beauty that we can develop.

We should work on building the community, rather than just building the economy. The community encompasses economic aspects, but it looks at the larger picture and works from there. I agree with Tina Sablan that we need honest government and an investment in our people and culture as a basis for promoting our fledgling economy. We should stop looking for the one-trick pony to ride (like the garment industry, EDIT-a certain kind of tourist-EDIT, casinos) and start promoting initiatives by our resident population for small and medium-sized enterprises that will build a solid base for happy community life.

Display Comments Add a Comment

I'm so glad to be finished with the official debate on the Saipan casino initiative. (And I dread seeing myself on local television!)

In a bit of follow-up research, I found this nifty site that offers a curriculum from Harvard Medical School for middle school kids on mathematics, probability and gaming--to help educate them about gambling and risk. FACING THE ODDS.

I like the bit about helping kids make the transition from "magical thinking" to "mathematical thinking." I'm not in middle-school, but it's been a long time since I took "probability and statistics" in college, so even I would like to be a student in this class!


(And now I hope to turn my blogging back to writing--and getting ready for NaNoWriMo!)

Display Comments Add a Comment

I blogged about my initial thoughts and analysis of the Saipan Casino Act here.

I've heard many other concerns since I wrote that article: concerns about unregulated greed and potential dishonesty; organizational, administrative, and technological incompetence; and unintended, harmful consequences on local businesses.

I share all of those concerns.

But one of my biggest and newest concerns deals with the effect on the traditional mwarmwar. I mean, what if we end up with headgear like this?

Display Comments Add a Comment

I'll skip the arguments against casinos in general--the invitation to organized crime, the effect on morality and the family, the cost in social and safety terms, etc. Even if you think casinos are the quick fix that Saipan needs for its economy, you should vote NO on this Saipan Casino Act.

The Act's design does not contribute to its goal.

1. The goal is to attract tourists and boost the economy. The act creates a monopoly for casino operation. There will be no competition, no other investment companies raising the bar for better, cleaner, prettier casinos. One investment company will get the one and only license available to operate casinos in Saipan. In the states, Indian casinos get a monopoly on their reservations, but ONLY IF the state allows investment by anyone in casinos that operate in the state. There's no state-wide monopoly. (Indian Regulatory Gaming Act.) Competition fosters better services. If the purpose is to attract tourists, we would need the best services, the ones created by competition.

The act gives more in CNMI-funded benefits than it gets.

2. The money to be generated by fees and permits ($550,000 per annum) will be needed for the cost of the new regulatory commission created. (per annum--$336,000 for 7 commissioners; approx. $100,000 for the executive director and treasurer; approx. $100,000 for support staff, legal and computer/technical services; approx. $14,000 for power, water, telephone, internet, supplies like paper, pens, printer ink cartridges; and nothing for furniture and capital assets, space rental & maintenance, insurance, alarm systems, etc.).

3. The money to be generated by the gross revenue tax is less than the value of the public land lease given. The act says that MPLA has to lease public land to the casino for $1.00 per year. In the past, MPLA and its predecessors set rents for public lands at a percentage of gross revenue, and set those rents at a much higher rate than 1%. So the gross revenue tax is really just a cheap rent for the public land.

4. There's really nothing more for the public that the act generates, except fines and penalties.

5. The salaries/money for the commissioners, executive director, treasurer, and staff comes from the casino that they regulate. And under the act, these officials are allowed to have shares in the casino. How independent will such a regulatory commission be? How many fines and penalties are likely to generated?


The Saipan Casino Act violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the CNMI's equal protection clause, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

6. The Investment Corporation must be owned solely by persons of Northern Marianas Descent (NMDs), meaning only NMDs can hold shares in the company, and act as its officers and directors. The Commissioners must be NMDs--with a guaranteed majority of Chamorros on the Commission. This discriminates against U.S. citizens and foreign investors who are not NMDs. It even discriminates against Carolinians among the NMDs. This is unconstitutional.

7. The executive director and treasurer must be NMDs. The Casino must give a hiring preference to NMDs (not resident workers, just resident NMDs). The Casino must give a management/training preference to NMDs. All of this discriminates in employment based on ethnicity and violates both U.S. and CNMI constitutions and the EEO act.

8. The money generated by the act, if there is any in excess of the costs, shall be subject to appropriation by the CNMI Saipan Delegation of the legislature, but there are restrictions on the appropriation: if the money is put toward social programs, the programs can only benefit NMDs. Scholarship money--only for NMDs. Elderly benefits--only for NMDs. Utility assistance--only for NMDs. This discriminates based on ethnicity and violates both the U.S. and CNMI Constitutions.

Why do we want a law that excludes lawful citizens and discriminates against them? When our Chamorro and Carolinian citizens go to the states, we don't want them to be discriminated against--we'll count on that equal protection guarantee for fair treatment. Why should it be different here? Why do we think a big, fat special interest law is the ticket to our improvement?

We don't.


Even if you think casinos are the wave of the future for Saipan, the initiative on the November 2007 ballot will only cause problems. Vote No on the Saipan Casino Act.

Display Comments Add a Comment