In search of a scapegoat

This letter is written in regards to erroneous information presented in the April 5, 2005 article in the Marianas Variety titled “CUC has to pay for archaeologists.” It is with serious concern and some alarm that information concerning our funding has been misrepresented in this article. Overall, this article makes archaeology the scapegoat of the CUC funding shortfall. In light of these allegations, we wish that you would print verbatim our response in tomorrow’s paper.

First, let us state that we at SHARC consider it an honor to be granted the privilege to investigate and report on the incredible prehistory and diverse history of the Mariana Islands. Accurate information on our finds is reported to our administering agency: the CNMI Division of Historic Preservation. Many of our projects in the past years have been funded through federal monies. We take very seriously our fiduciary responsibility, both to the people of the CNMI and also the U.S. taxpayer to also accurately state our income to the CNMI Tax and Revenue Department and also to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

Additionally, archaeological investigations fulfil the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800 and CNMI Public Laws 3-33 and 3-39. When sites eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places must be destroyed or damaged by a federal undertaking, and according to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1974, federal funding is available for recovery of important archaeological data.

The Marianas Variety article raises particular concern with the statement (paragraph 6) that CUC is spending an additional $556,000 for the services of the archaeological firm Swift & Harper. In fact, our total gross income in the five years between 2000 and 2004 falls below the $556,000 amount claimed by CUC to have paid us.

Not only is this figure grossly inaccurate, but CUC does not directly pay SHARC for our billing on the sewer projects. Instead, for all ongoing sewer projects, SHARC is under subcontract to the construction firms awarded the project. We bill the construction company for our services and they pay us directly. The benefits to this arrangement is that the construction companies provide the heavy equipment and operators, and generally, we are paid in a timely fashion. Throughout the years, construction companies have provided good cooperation with our investigations.

While it is with great disappointment that the article fails to reflect these facts, it raises a more serious question. Where is this $556,000 that CUC claims to have paid Swift and Harper actually going? If we weren’t paid it, who was? Or, is the amount reported just inaccurate?

Both we as well as the general public have a right to know the facts. We do not wish to be the scapegoat. Thank you for your attention to our concerns.

Michael A. Fleming
Marilyn K. Swift
Randy A. Harper
San Vicente, Saipan