McPhetres: I felt betrayed by Saipan U

Speaking in a very clear and authoritative voice, Saipan University adviser Agnes McPhetres told the court yesterday that she had nothing to do with SU “misrepresentation” in China and said that she was in fact quite upset and felt betrayed by what had happened.

“I was very upset about that [wrong website information]. I immediately went to Mr. Park and [demanded] to pull out the website,” she said during direct examination by assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Smith at U.S. District Court.

“I felt betrayed because I tried to build a good institution,” she said.

McPhetres was the prosecution’s last witness in the ongoing jury trial against SU founder Soon Kyung Park.

Park faces multiple fraud charges relating to his recruitment and transport of some 100 Chinese students last year to Saipan.

In her testimony, McPhetres also made clear that she absolutely had no knowledge that Park had been promising Chinese students employment in the CNMI.

“I never told him that students can work here. I didn’t assure them that a regulation would pass,” she said, referring to the government’s proposed emergency regulation that would allow foreign students to work part-time in the CNMI.

McPhetres said that she also informed Park that SU could only offer non-credit courses.

“I was not aware that he’s offering credit courses,” she said.

She said that when problems began popping up without resolution, she decided to distance herself from the institution.

“I never formally terminated [my services] but I stayed away from them,” she said.

The last direct involvement she made for SU, she said, was to explain to the first batch of SU students the change of Tinian University to Saipan University sometime in September.

Later on, she said, she received a call from then SU president Jullie Ulloa about students complaining about the facility and the lack of work.

“I didn’t want to get involved with SU so I wrote a very strong letter, expressing my discontentment with what was happening,” she said.

She said she saw SU to be a good institution but she was greatly dismayed by what had turned out.

In an Oct. 7, 2003 letter to Park, she indicated that the president and students were very unhappy for being lied to and the university could not function for lack of money.

She said that in her letter, she warned of the potential fate of SU if certain things were not corrected such as the lack of a surety bond.

If there was no surety bond as required by the Board of Regents, SU would be closed down, she said in the letter.

The bond is a guarantee fund, which could be tapped to send the students back to China.

McPhetres said Park ignored her advice and did not secure a bond.

“I told them it’s against the law and students can’t be employed by the private sector here,” she said.

During cross examination, defense attorney Joseph Aldan Arriola pointed out that McPhetres could not claim innocence in SU’s affairs because she was one of SU’s incorporators, she was a director of SU’s board, and she was its secretary and treasurer.

“Do you know that you have fiduciary responsibility as officer of the corporation? And you’re agreeing that you’re (a director, an officer) and yet you said you kept your distance?” stressed Arriola.

“And was it (letter) the first time that you addressed the financial matters?” he asked.

McPhetres answered yes.

“Was it not you who consistently advised the president? Were you completely in the dark as to what was happening? How many board meetings have you conducted to discuss [important] matters?” asked Arriola.

McPhetres said the board only met once in six months but she noted that she had repeatedly requested verbally for meetings.

Arriola cited that McPhetres had only two letters issued to SU: One was Aug. 6, 2003 and the last one was Oct. 7, 2003.

“Did you write the Oct. 7 letter to cover yourself because you knew that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was looking into it?” asked Arriola, to which McPhetres replied a resounding, “no!” and justified that she only wanted to help because “I didn’t want the institution to go down.”

“But you kept your distance,” Arriola reminded her.

“Because I was not consulted. I should have been asked. I was supposed to know but what am I going to do when the trust is not there?” she said.

While McPhetres was in a high and agitated tone, insisting that “I wanted the institution to progress,” the defense lawyer, said, “nothing further, your honor.”

Coming to her defense, the prosecution lawyer made his redirect by pointing that she was not involved in SU’s marketing in China.

“Did you have any responsibility when it comes to marketing? Did you go to China?” Smith asked.

McPhetres answered no to both questions.

“Were the students complaining about the promises that Park had made in China? He asked.

She answered yes.

Smith also showed an exhibit showing that Park signed a work-study contract with a student in China on April 10, 2003 or 10 days after TU received its provisional license.

Smith said Park’s recruitment and promise of work was done way in advance before the CNMI government ever made an attempt to amend the existing regulation.

Through Smith, McPhetres also explained that by “keeping her distance, ” she meant that she was not acting as middle person for SU.

“SU had a president. I’d rather that all communications are made straight to the administration, not to me. As a board of director, it’s not my responsibility to manage the institution,” she said.