Notice and opportunity for public hearing/oversight

Dear Senate President Victor Hocog and Senate EAGI chairman Sen. Francisco Q. Cruz:

Be noticed1 that I am duly reappointed member of the Northern Marianas College Board of Regents effective June 24, 2013 (and expiring on June 26, 2017), following a published and open public hearing performed by the Senate EAGI committee, which filed on July 25 2013, the committee report to the full Senate and was duly re-confirmed by the Senate effective July 26, 2013. After which, I performed the oath of office on July 31, 2013, at the NMC Board of Regents conference room, and was witnessed by the college, members of the college regents, including Gov. Inos who performed the oath, when I publicly declared on record to “solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Covenant to establish a Commonwealth, the applicable provisions of the U.S. Constitution, and treaties of the U.S. and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as a member of the Northern Marianas College Board of Regents, to the best of my ability…”

In mid-July, 2015, I requested a meeting with EAGI chairman Cruz for an opportunity to brief the committee on the actual tracing performed on the term of office of all seven current regents (five from Saipan, one from Rota, and one from Tinian), including the term of the office I occupy, which I openly disputed (since April 24, 2015).

Last week, I again made efforts in setting an appointment with the EAGI committee chairman in the instant case, a subject that was amply brought to the attention of the Senate and the EAGI committee since July 2015, on the regents office I currently occupy that has neither expired nor vacant; the office I currently occupy officially expires on June 26, 2017 per the official communication by Gov. Inos.

The NMC Board of Regents, the body that is constitutionally vested with autonomy and independence over the administration of the affairs of the board, has neither issued notice nor officially acted in disputing my current standing as an official member of the college regents.

Presumably, the EAGI committee may rely on some reference, if not by request, which neither originated from, nor was officially acted upon by the members of the present Board of Regents.

Unclear as to whether or not the committee placed reliance on an unsolicited letter of April 15, 2015, penned by the attorney general, I do know that the Board of Regents in a special April 2015 board meeting, openly disputed the impetus and substance of that letter, a subject decided in ample case precedents and in one local case decided last week.

Referenced in a decided controversy that involves the Tinian Casino Gaming Control Commission and in a similar case in Hawaii, the court made the point above exceedingly clear: “First of all, an attorney general’s opinion cannot by itself establish ‘clearly established law.’ See Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau v. City of Los Angeles, 997 F.2d 620, 625 (9th Cir. 1993) (the courts are not bound by an attorney general’s opinions, although they are generally regarded as highly persuasive); Price II, 921 F.2d at 957 (the attorney general’s opinion regarding the use of § 5(f) funds in the hands of OHA had no affect on the court’s analysis); Guardian Plans, Inc. v. Teague, 870 F.2d 123, 129 (4th Cir.) (attorney general’s opinion “does not have the force of law”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 882,110 S.Ct. 218, 107 L.Ed.2d 172 (1989); Nicholson v. Gant, 816 F.2d 591, 595 (11th Cir. 1987) The attorney general’s opinion “is not law and not binding”).”

As of Sept. 21, 2015, NMC Board of Regents legal counsel, a former Supreme Court justice and former lieutenant governor, Mr. Jesse Borja, informed me that he is actively engaged in a factual discovery with the Legislature on the subject at hand based on an action by the Board of Regents, with instructions by the board to the counsel to present an objective findings of facts and conclusion of law for the Board of Regents’ consideration, review, and action in an official board meeting to be called soon.

Technically, the board’s action makes a declaratory or injunctive judicial review premature at this time, pending the board counsel’s factual discovery and application of the staggered term of office law affecting the standing of the current term of office of all members of the current regents board.

William S. Torres
Member, NMC Board of Regents

1 Source documents evidencing all claims above may be made available to the committee and Senate upon request.