Clarification

The Aug. 18 Saipan Tribune article Azmar gets conditional approval quoted me as saying that I was surprised that the MPLA Board came back from recess and voted to give Azmar a conditional permit. I did not say this, of course, because I knew that the Board deferred voting on whether or not to grant Azmar the conditional two-year permit for at least 60 days.

Let me put things in proper context. At the beginning of the meeting, board chair Ana Demapan-Castro read a statement that basically said “talk is cheap” and, after all that has been said, in order to prove that MPLA is not trying to chase away investors, those who want to mine Pagan should be given a chance to mine Pagan provided they can prove they are qualified. The chair then read off a list of requirements that MPLA has been asking Azmar to provide but Azmar still failed to do so as part of the application-review process. This included proof that Azmar is not just a paper company and that it has the financial capability to undertake the mining project.

The chair followed her statement with a recommendation that Azmar be given a two-year conditional permit and then she put this recommendation to a vote. I was surprised that this particular recommendation was made given the MPLA staff’s own recommendation last Friday that the board suspend further negotiations with Azmar or any other prospective mining companies until an RFP can be sent out to solicit bids from other qualified developers.

It was at this juncture that board member Benita Manglona raised the crucial question as to why the board was being asked to vote on whether or not to grant Azmar a conditional two-year permit given the still missing requirements and the MPLA’s own remaining unanswered questions as to Azmar’s financial capabilities. Manglona indicated that she did not want to be pressured into voting until the missing documents had been provided and she had had a chance to evaluate the information. Board member Nick Nekai then said that that was why he submitted the list of “conditions” that were read off by Demapan-Castro concerning Azmar’s permit application. Board member Manny Villagomez, who was in the Philippines and attended the meeting via teleconference, indicated that he agreed with Manglona’s recommendations. Demapan-Castro then called a recess.

When the board resumed the meeting, I was surprised to hear that a decision had been reached to give Azmar 60 days to comply with the list of missing requirements, which Manglona began to list and then re-affirmed by Demapan-Castro.

When I was asked for my reactions after this action had been taken, I said that I was surprised when the board returned from recess and voted the way they did. I should have elaborated further by saying that what the board did was to grant Azmar an additional 60 days to comply with the requirements they were supposed to have already complied with but didn’t and which led MPLA’s own staff to recommend suspension of further negotiations with Azmar in favor of issuing an RFP to attract qualified and experienced investors.

Thank you for this opportunity to clear this up.

Cinta M. Kaipat
UNMIA president and PaganWatch member