Clarifications

I write this letter to express my concern with how CDA is conducting its affairs lately. Please understand that my comments are my own, and should not be imputed to my colleagues. I find utterly shameful CDA’s accusations by implication that I have somehow acted unethically when voting on Senate Bill 14-48.

I certainly wish someone from their office had spoken to me prior to faxing their three-page complaint to the press, so I could clear up a few inaccuracies. For example, CDA boldly and bluntly asserts as fact that “it is known that the reason for the passage of S.B. 14-48 by the legislature is because of the aggressive lobbying efforts of several high profile defaulted borrowers.”

NOT ONE person came to my office to discuss this legislation with me or my staff prior to my vote. In fact, I have absolutely no knowledge that the bill existed prior to its introduction since it was introduced on the floor DURING our session, which subsequently, was placed on calendar and passed in the same session.

I voted on S.B. 14-48 because I thought, for the most part, that it would be in the best interests of the people. I have always been outspoken in support of preventing foreclosure of any local businesses on the island. Furthermore, I have always been an advocate of extending assistance to alternatives over foreclosure of businesses. Recently, we have seen businesses whose management was turned over to receivership. These are the types of alternatives that are available for CDA to consider over an aggressive and total lack of consideration to foreclose local businesses.

It is my humble opinion that CDA should focus more on assisting businesses that are not showing signs of progress in order to ensure that the loan is secured and are collectible. Instead, it is my observation that CDA’s total effort is concentrated on taking away properties and valuables used as collateral to recover their loans. Speaker Benigno Fitial is correct in questioning the motives of CDA to mislead the public about its past decisions on giving out loans. The speaker is further correct that CDA’s focus should have been “why the delinquency in the first place and who is responsible for lending money very loosely, resulting in such a high delinquency rate.” I believe that part of the fault for the high delinquency rate of CDA’s borrowers lies with the management of CDA. A good analogy of this scenario is when 80 percent of the students in a class are failing, then the blame should rest on the teacher of that class. Perhaps the pending legislation in the Senate to abolish the board of directors of CDA and have the governor appoint the executive director of CDA has merit for consideration.

Next, I would have let CDA know that the bill has not been vetoed. I do not know if CDA’s assertion otherwise is merely wishful thinking or proof of its sloppiness in this matter.

Finally, as to the allegation that I voted for the passage of S.B. 14-48 because I have a first cousin who has a loan in default, all I can say is that this is news to me. I had, and still have, no idea to whom CDA refers.

And that is not for a lack of trying. After reading CDA’s accusations, I immediately phoned CDA to inquire as to which cousin of mine was in default. I was told by the “acting” person-in-charge (more on that later) that CDA was advised by their lawyer, Ben Salas, that they couldn’t give me the information. I asked the Senate legal counsel to investigate and they got the same response. No one returned my call despite the numerous messages left at CDA for the appropriate official(s) to return my call.

I wonder why CDA now feels as if it cannot name names, when CDA has absolutely named names. They explicitly named legislators. Further, they explicitly named the FAMILY of legislators. There is NO DOUBT about that. For, when CDA names a senator and then states that the senator’s father and mother are also in default, there can be no doubt that CDA has publicly named the father and mother as well. (Unless, of course, CDA attempts to weasel by saying that the parentage of the senator is somehow unclear or in doubt. I strongly advise CDA not to go down that road).

If it wasn’t wrong or illegal for CDA to publicly name my colleagues and their family members, they why won’t CDA help me investigate by privately, (or for that matter, publicly) telling me the name of my relative? CDA’s refusal to provide me the name of my first cousin whom it has tied me with is tantamount to alleging wrongdoing on my part and giving me no opportunity to face my accuser to verify the accuracy of that allegation.

Also, I wish they had the courage and integrity to take this action while CDA’s leaders were on island to help clear up their mess. I have been trying to get to the bottom of this and it is difficult to do that when the chairman of the board and executive director are off-island. I mean no disrespect to the person currently running things there, but it is clear she can do nothing but say nothing. Perhaps CDA should have waited until its leaders were present before dragging my name through the mud.

The folks at CDA may not like my vote, but they have NO RIGHT to libel me by asserting, without offering any proof whatsoever, that I (by lumping me in with everyone else) somehow caved in to special interest lobbying. I trust those who know me know better than that.

Finally, CDA should understand that I have no control over my relatives in their decision to venture into business, to borrow money, and their action to default on such loan. I should not be used to impress the public that the misgivings of my relatives are directly or indirectly related to me.

Sen. Pete P. Reyes
Capitol Hill