House split on reviving public lands board

Members of the House of Representatives are split on a proposal to revive a public lands board of directors, leading to an 8-7 vote yesterday that rejected a committee recommendation to put Senate Bill 16-42 on the House floor.

After a lengthy discussion on both the pros and cons of reviving a public lands board and the voting on the committee report, the bill was referred back to the House Committee on Natural Resources chaired by Rep. Ramon Tebuteb.

Standing Committee Report 16-87 recommends that S.B. 16-42 be put to a floor vote. The bill seeks to reinstate a board of directors for the Department of Public Lands while keeping DPL within the Executive Branch. The bill aims to lend a higher level of transparency to DPL’s decision-making.

Five House members were absent during voting on the committee report.

Lawmakers took turns weighing the pros and cons of having a secretary appointed by the governor to decide on public lands matters or reinstate a board of directors so that public lands decisions will not rest solely on one person. Others are opposed to the idea of reinstating a board but still keeping DPL under the Executive Branch, saying the department should be a separate agency.

Those who voted “no” to the committee report were Rep. Diego T. Benavente, Floor Leader Joe Camacho, Rep. Victor Hocog, Rep. Heinz Hofschneider, Rep. Joe Reyes, Rep. Tina Sablan, Rep. Ralph Torres, and Speaker Arnold I. Palacios.

The seven who voted “yes” included Reps. Edwin Aldan, David Apatang, Oscar M. Babauta, Francisco Dela Cruz, Ray Tebuteb, Stanley Torres, and Vice Speaker Joe Deleon Guerrero.

Absent during the voting were Reps. Raymond Palacios, Justo Quitugua, Rosemond Santos, Ray Yumul, and Ed Salas.

Apatang said it doesn’t matter whether public land decisions rest solely on one person or a board of directors, so long as every decision maker follows the law.

“I’m supporting this bill 100 percent. Let’s file it and let the law decide,” said Apatang.

Rep. Ralph Torres said having one person deciding on public land matters “is totally wrong,” and there should be “checks and balances.”

House Speaker Arnold I. Palacios and Rep. Diego T. Benavente and others said past abuses by MPLA board members were among the reasons why the body was abolished, giving way to DPL, which has been placed under the Executive Branch.

Reps. Tina Sablan and Heinz Hofschneider said another major concern is the absence of an updated land use plan that, Sablan said, is “disturbing.”

“We’re told by DPL that the land use plan is somewhere in the DPL office. My fear is that there isn’t really a land use plan,” said Sablan.

Rep. Ray Tebuteb, chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, said the bill uses “hope” that by reviving a board, there will be better accountability.

During discussions on accountability of decision makers, Floor Leader Joe Camacho pointed out that department heads like the DPL secretary are not subject to impeachment.

Rep. Victor Hocog said he likes to see a board that will ensure fairness in the disposition of public lands. “This is a judgment call on each of the member,” he said.

Rep. Francisco Dela Cruz said DPL is still in its infancy stage and should be given time to grow.

The committee report said the bill’s intention is noble and respectable as it helps DPL create checks and balances in dealing with land issues and claims against DPL.

But the committee also finds that it’s not recommended that a board be created for DPL while the department is not autonomous.

The committee said the creation of the deputy administrator position for Tinian and Rota will be an additional financial burden to DPL and may also be subject to abuse as the position will be appointed by each respective mayor, with the advice and consent of the municipal councils and may only be removed by the mayor.

The House committee also cited the Office of the Public Auditor’s report on the travel and per diem abuses of former public lands board members.

In the four-page report, the committee agrees with Northern Islands Mayor Valentin Taisakan that the bill does not provide specific schedules of board meetings in a calendar year, or the number of days authorized for such meetings.

“We should learn from past experience that such openhanded provisions or policy have been overly abused, which has cost the CNMI hundreds of thousands of dollars or more,” said Taisakan in commenting on S.B. 16-42.

The Senate had passed the bill on Oct. 2, 2008, on an 8 to 0 vote.