Rep. Tina Sablan's PRESS RELEASE through e-mail

Press Conference

February 20, 2008 10am


On the use of public funds for charitable donations, and the budget of the legislature

Before entering public office, I made two commitments. One, I resolved to advocate for a more open and honest government and to practice transparency in my own conduct as an elected representative. And two, I committed to exploring ways to decrease the cost of government, and to exercise prudence in my own office in ensuring that public funds are prioritized and allocated for the greater good of the people of the Commonwealth.


Since coming into public office, I have received requests on an almost daily basis for “donations” of picnic tables, tents, water, other in-kind contributions, and money. The requests come from youth centers, schools, nonprofit organizations, families that have lost loved ones, and private citizens. Usually, in return for a “donation,” I am offered special recognition as a “sponsor” – my name and position as a member of the House on a banner, for instance, or expressions of gratitude at regular intervals over a P.A. system at a public event. I have also received numerous requests for jobs, mostly from prospective community workers who offer to erect tents, build tables, paint bus stops and trash cans, and attend funerals in my name. I have declined all these requests.


It is not that these are not worthy causes. It is not that I do not care about children, or about bereaved families, or about keeping the neighborhoods in my precinct clean.


For me, saying no to requests for donations using public funds is a matter of principle. It is about honoring the public trust, focusing on our constitutionally mandated responsibilities as legislators, and expending money wisely and with our priorities firmly in place. The public money that legislators spend on “donations” to schools and youth centers, for instance, is money that should be appropriated to the Public School System and the youth centers themselves. The public money that legislators spend on municipal services such as neighborhood cleanups and park maintenance is money that should be appropriated to the agencies that are already mandated to carry out those responsibilities.


I firmly believe that if legislators would focus on their primary duty to enact good laws and allocate public funds fairly and responsibly, the Commonwealth would not need a full-time Legislature, and it would certainly not need such an expensive one. Under the Constitution, on top of salaries, each individual legislator can receive a maximum amount of $155,000 for their discretionary funds. Presiding officers for the House and Senate can receive up to $400,000 each.


Now, to be fair, like last year’s budget, the new budget for Fiscal Year 2008, which we are working on now, does not propose to give those maximum amounts to the Legislature. At yesterday’s budget meeting, allocations of $105,000 per individual member and of $175,000 each for the Office of the Speaker and for the Office of the Senate President were proposed. A total Full-Time Employee (FTE) ceiling of 349 was also proposed, inclusive of the House and Senate members and their staff (312), the staff of the Legislative Bureau (36), and the Youth Congress (1).


I proposed yesterday to cut the individual and leadership allocations even more and also to reduce the FTE ceiling of the Legislature. I said that if we were going to slash the budgets of other agencies and eliminate FTEs, then we should lead by example, cut our own budgets and FTE ceilings, and allocate those funds to critical services. I suggested that we reduce the allocations to $75,000 per individual member, or approximately half of the maximum amount allowed, cut the presiding officers’ allocations to $100,000 each, limit the number of personal staff per individual member to one, and eliminate the number of staff that can be hired for the committees altogether.


In response, the other members pointed out that even though the FTE ceiling of 349 was set for the Legislature, that 349 people were not actually employed. That number was set just to provide “flexibility’ to the legislators to hire staff that they might need. It was also said that if the Legislature reduces its budget so dramatically now, that it is likely to be even lower in the next fiscal year. Some members noted that even though they understood that there are too many duplicated functions within the government, that they are still expected to provide certain public services for the community and that they use their discretionary funds for those purposes. Other members noted that there are certain charitable causes to which they would like to dedicate a portion of their discretionary funds, and cited one of the local youth centers as an example.


I stated that a legislature that gives itself a ceiling of 349 FTEs that it does not actually need is essentially advertising itself as an employment agency, in a time when other agencies must cope with limited funds, hiring freezes, and significantly reduced FTE ceilings. I also said that rather than have each individual legislator picking and choosing which causes to support through the discretionary funds, we should simply cut our own budgets and appropriate those funds to the programs and agencies that we all agree are priorities.


My position is that if we donate money or volunteer our time for any cause, we should do so out of our own pockets and on our own time – not in our official capacities as members of the legislature, but in our private capacities as members of this community. In other words, “donations” using public funds are not donations at all, but an unfair and selective allocation of taxpayer dollars. Further, legislators who spend time and public funds providing certain municipal services are perpetuating the inefficient and costly practice of duplicating government functions and inadequately appropriating funds to the agencies that are tasked with providing those same services – and if we know that already, then we should put a stop to it.


None of the members present agreed and all voted to retain the original proposed budget for the Legislature.


Later that evening, and shortly after the budget meeting, I went to a Parent-Teacher Association meeting at San Antonio Elementary School. I was there for three reasons: 1) to explain to the principal, teachers, parents, and students of the school why I had declined their request for tables and tents to support a school fundraiser at the end of the month; 2) to give them an update of the budget process; and 3) to listen to the concerns of the school.


After explaining my position on charitable donations using public funds, and describing the budget meeting from which I had just come, I sat down and listened during the rest of the meeting. They discussed a school fundraiser for toilet paper and other supplies. They planned a campus cleanup, and called for donations for rakes, bushcutters, and gasoline, because there is only one groundskeeper and no money for fuel to run his bushcutter, to procure supplies, or to hire additional FTEs to assist him. They talked about an emergency electrical upgrade of the school that had to be done recently, because equipment had literally burned out – this project drained the school of its remaining capital improvement funds. They talked about recent incidents of violence on campus – between students and between parents. They talked about increasing rates of diabetes and obesity among the Commonwealth’s children, and their struggle to fight that trend with limited resources.


They also said that education cannot truly be a priority for the politicians that have campaigned on that issue, if politicians are not willing to cut their own budgets to appropriate funds that are needed to ensure that schools are safe and properly equipped. And they said that if legislators would only appropriate the resources that schools need through the budgeting process, they would not be asking for donations to begin with. I agreed.


When we took our oaths of office, we accepted the responsibility of ensuring that public funds are allocated fairly and for the greater good of all our people. This necessarily means that we should not be selective in our allocations of taxpayer dollars in ways that we hope will ensure reelection. In these difficult economic times, we should be prepared as legislators to make the same significant sacrifices that we ask of other branches of government. Moreover, if there remains room to cut the excesses of public office that have prevailed all these years, so that essential public services can be better funded, then our ethics and sense of responsibility should compel us to make those necessary cuts.


Before I entered public office, I was told by a number of people, including a few experienced politicians, that the pressure from requests for “donations” is enormous and I would probably eventually cave in, particularly if I hope to be reelected. But besides the fact that I am not worried about reelection, it should be noted that I was elected in the first place on a platform that was based on transparency and frugality. And while in office, I intend to remain true to the commitments that I made before I was elected.


As always, I welcome questions and comments from the community. I may be reached at 664-8931 or 483-3935, or by email at tinsablan@gmail.com .

TAOTAO TANO CNMI is concern........

FEBRUARY 02, 2008 made a request to Tina Sablan for a copy of her house bill "ANIMAL CRUELTY" be furnish to Taotao Tano CNMI Association, Inc. for further research.

February 02, 2008, a child/student had commented on "cruelty law" House Bill which await's passage by the 16th legislature. Does this child understand the language of this law? On the other hand she claims she's a student of WSR and her teacher is Mrs. Ain. Has Mrs. Ain introduced this issue to her students? Did this teacher made her students understand the language of this house bill? The concequencies of this law if implimented? If she did not, then this teacher is mis-representing this information to her students at WSR elementary school. On the other hand, why is William S. Reyes Elementary School allowing the discussion of House Bills in class rooms to 6th graders?

'Pass anti-animal cruelty law'

st- Letters to the Editor Sunday, February 03, 2008

To Senate President Pete Reyes:

My name is Aprilleen Sablan. I am in 6th grade. I attend school at William S. Reyes. My homeroom teacher is Ms. Phyllis Ain. I am writing to you because I think the CNMI Legislature should pass the Anti- Animal Cruelty Law because the people of the CNMI aren't treating animals the way they should be treated. Most of the villages I go to, I see abandoned animals, animals with diseases and that isn't right. This law will prevent animals from being neglected, abandoned, and injured.

A few nights ago you said that you weren't going to pass the law because the CNMI has a budget. It doesn't really matter if the CNMI has a budget or not. The law wouldn't need that much money. If you pass this law the CNMI would be a better place. There wouldn't be any neglected or injured animals. The CNMI would be an even more beautiful place. Now the CNMI isn't that beautiful because there are animals going around with diseases and animals that are injured, and that might scare away the tourists. The CNMI Legislature wants more tourists to come to the islands, right? So I think the Legislature should pass the Law. I hope you and the rest of the representatives pass this law. Thank you for your time.

Aprilleen Sablan
William S. Reyes Elementary School