By Tina Sablan
SAIPAN, CNMI (Marianas Variety, August 24, 2010) – Last week, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) House of Representatives passed a budget that proposes to increase lawmakers’ discretionary budgets while imposing significant austerity measures on the rest of government, including basic services necessary for the health, safety, and education of the community.

The move has triggered public outcry across the CNMI, and petitions have begun circulating. One petition protests the House proposal and urges the passage of a more responsible budget; another calls on the public auditor to conduct the first full audit of legislative discretionary expenditures.

Taxpayers have the right to know how lawmakers have been spending the public funds generously afforded to them over the years, and they also have the right to know how lawmakers can justify increasing their budgets during these fiscally strained times.

The discretionary funds of the Legislature are those public funds provided to each individual lawmaker, the presiding officer in each house, for the operations and activities of the Legislature. The CNMI Constitution provides that individual lawmakers shall receive an equal amount not to exceed US$155,000 annually, and further provides that the presiding officer in each house shall receive an additional amount not to exceed US$400,000 a year, with a portion of this amount being equally distributed to the standing committees. Article II, Section 16(c).

The Legislature appropriated for itself the maximum amount allowed under the Constitution up until 2006, when the 15th Legislature passed a budget that lowered discretionary funds to US$150,000 per lawmaker, US$158,000 for the Senate presiding officer and Senate committees, and US$108,000 for the House presiding officer and House committees. The Legislature’s discretionary funds were reduced again to approximately US$99,000 per lawmaker and US$110,000 for each of the leadership accounts in the two houses through the appropriations act for Fiscal Year 2009, and reduced still further through budget cuts imposed proportionately across the government pursuant to 1 CMC § 7204 (Planning and Budgeting Act).

The 17th House now proposes to raise the discretionary budgets for individual lawmakers from the current amount (reportedly US$86,000) to US$130,000, and to set each of the leadership budgets at approximately US$76,000 (down from the current amount of approximately US$95,000). The House further proposes to exempt the Legislature from any future proportionate budget reductions imposed by the governor (in other words, only the other branches and instrumentalities of the government will bear the burden of any additional cuts), and to exempt the Legislature from paying the public auditor’s fee — 1 percent of the total appropriations required from every other instrumentality, department, agency, corporation, and budget activity of the CNMI government.

Members of the House who are in favor of increasing the Legislature’s discretionary budgets have argued that they need additional funds in order to carry out their responsibilities as lawmakers and to provide services to the community. Without providing specifics, they have urged the community to consider the increased budgets as an "investment" in the Legislature, and to be assured that the funds will go back to the public.

These statements from our lawmakers should prompt us all to consider carefully exactly what we expect of them. What are the responsibilities we expect them to carry out, and what are the services that we expect them to provide? Moreover, is it time for us to reevaluate our expectations?

One of the fundamental duties of the Legislature is to pass a balanced budget every year. Another is to pass sound laws that protect and enhance the welfare of the community. The budgeting and lawmaking processes work best when they are open to the public, participatory, and deliberative. Lawmakers do need professional support services to assist them as they research and draft legislation, conduct public hearings, prepare committee reports, and debate on the floor. These support services do cost money. The legislative bureau was created under the Constitution to provide these support services to lawmakers, and was given a budget of up to US$2,000,000 a year, separate from the discretionary funds afforded to lawmakers. The Constitution further provides that the bureau shall be nonpartisan, independent, and free from political harassment or pressure, though this constitutional mandate has never been achieved in reality. Indeed, strengthening the institutional capacity, professionalism, and independence of the legislative bureau has yet to become a serious priority, and institutional weaknesses in the legislative bureau gravely affect the quality of work produced by the Legislature.

If past and current trends are any indicator, increasing the discretionary funds of lawmakers will almost certainly not translate into better performance of fundamental legislative duties, which raises the question: How do lawmakers spend their discretionary funds?

While the Constitution expressly prohibits the use of any part of the appropriations for the Legislature (except for salaries) for personal or political activities, it does not define either personal or political activity. Article II, Section 16(f). In 2000 the 12th Legislature passed a law that declared that all expenditures authorized and regulated by legislative rules are for a public purpose, unless proved by clear and convincing evidence that the expenditure was for a personal or political activity. Public Law 12-2; 1 CMC § 121.

In general, the legislative rules have authorized hiring of staff and consultants, official travel, and purchases of office supplies and equipment; expenditures for customary functions and community expenses; food, beverage, entertainment, and similar expenses; expenditures to promote the morale of employees and other legislative staff; and up to US$5,000 for each member per month to defray the costs of food, lodging, transportation, and other incidental expenses incurred while attending to legislative business within the commonwealth but outside home districts (typically described as the "subsistence allowance.")

In more concrete terms, members of the Legislature have used discretionary funds to pay for administrative staff, community workers, attorneys, legislative staff, and consultants; travel to and from conferences, public hearings, and fact-finding missions; leases of vehicles used for both personal and official business; fuel for these vehicles; cell phones used for both personal and official business; picnic tables, tents, drinks, and food for fiestas, rosaries, class reunions, funerals, school fundraisers, and other events; equipment and uniforms for sports teams or law enforcement officers; village or roadside cleanups; trash bins at public parks; paint supplies for youth centers, beach pavilions, and bus stops; school supplies and equipment for certain schools; medical referral expenses for certain constituents; and scores of other pet projects. In return for these generous contributions or sponsorships using public funds, lawmakers are directly or indirectly promised public recognition and political support at the next election.

When I served in the 16th Legislature, like the rest of my colleagues I routinely received multiple requests from individuals and organizations for "donations" a week, sometimes several in a day — despite the "No Solicitation" signs that were posted on all the walls throughout the legislative building. I kept a file of solicitation letters received during the entire two years. By the end of my term, the file was close to two inches thick, and that didn’t include the many verbal solicitations I received from constituents in person or over the phone. I said no to all of these requests, and explained time and again to often-irate constituents that I believed expenditures of this nature from public funds were inappropriate and unethical, even if "everyone else was doing it."

It was more difficult for my colleagues in the Legislature to say no to these requests. Many wanted to fulfill promises made during their campaigns, and that could include anything from rewarding political supporters with jobs to hiring community workers to clean up roadsides and deliver tables and tents to constituents. Many believed that "donations" from public funds were simply part of a lawmaker’s job, and that those funds were necessary so that individual lawmakers could assist projects and programs in their districts that would otherwise not be funded. Moreover, many wanted to be reelected, and found that responding to these solicitations from the community with "donations" from public funds was one tried-and-true way to build political capital and name recognition.

I was frequently advised by my more senior colleagues to use up the discretionary funds allotted to my office or else they were "just going to go back to the General Fund." The implication was that the governor was just going to waste the money anyway if I did not spend it. My response was always that no branch of government should be wasting taxpayer money, and lawmakers’ concerns about the governor squandering public funds were all the more reason why a responsible budget with stricter controls needed to be passed.

Moreover, the Legislature’s discretionary funds need to be better accounted for, and every discretionary dollar spent on something other than a direct and justifiable legislative activity, is a dollar that could be used instead to properly fund the departments and agencies mandated with providing critical public services that benefit all. In other words, public funds "donated" by lawmakers to provide supplies and equipment to selected schools, could instead be budgeted to ensure sufficient resources for the Public School System and Northern Marianas College.

Taxpayer dollars "donated" by lawmakers to cover airfare for selected individuals in need of medical care off-island, could instead be budgeted to ensure sufficient medical staffing, supplies, and equipment at our local hospital and clinics. These are just two of many examples.

In 2009 I introduced a bill to provide stricter and clearer guidelines for expenditures from the Legislature’s discretionary funds, and to prohibit solicitation for impermissible expenditures. The bill died in committee, but the concerns that prompted it then — the lack of transparency and accountability for legislative expenditures, the use of public funds for personal and political purposes, and shrinking government revenues — continue to this day.

The discretionary expenditures of the Legislature have never, to my knowledge, been the subject of a comprehensive audit. There was one review by the public auditor, conducted in 2002, that was limited to the monthly subsistence allowances provided to members of the 13th Senate over a six-month period. The auditor found then that the subsistence allowance was likely in considerable excess of the actual cost of travel within the commonwealth and therefore constituted an unjustified personal benefit in violation of the Constitution. Some of the auditor’s recommendations were implemented, but the US$5,000 allowance remains in place to this day and there is still little accountability for these expenditures.

I believe a full and formal audit of the Legislature’s discretionary expenditures is long overdue.

At the end of the day, in a democracy, we get the government we deserve. If we sincerely want our lawmakers to prioritize their fundamental duties to pass balanced budgets and sound legislation to protect and enhance the welfare of the entire community, then the time to speak up is now, and our actions must be consistent with our words. This means that we ourselves must stop asking lawmakers for "donations" from discretionary funds, and it also means that we must actively discourage our family members and friends from doing the same. It goes without saying that most lawmakers are political creatures, and they respond to public demands. The voices of constituents clamoring for legislative accountability and responsible budgets must be louder and more compelling than the numerous letters and phone calls of solicitation that reach lawmakers’ desks day in and day out.

This is not to excuse the actions of our lawmakers who have for many years been spending public funds with little accountability and often for personal or political purposes. But the truth is that if we want our lawmakers to change for the better, we ourselves must also change. We must change our expectations of public officials. If we only want lawmakers who will provide us picnic tables and tents and whatever else we ask for, then that is all we will get, and we should not be surprised when the basic duties of lawmakers are neglected, and balanced budgets fail to pass, essential services are under funded, and harmful legislation is rushed to passage. When we allow ourselves to expect more of our lawmakers — when we begin to expect them to be more than just politicians, but to be responsible statesmen and stateswomen — then we also begin to reevaluate our own roles as citizens, taxpayers, and voters. We hold our lawmakers more accountable, and ourselves.

Marianas Variety: www.mvariety.com
Copyright © 2010 Marianas Variety. All Rights Reserved