Clarification on NMC president issue

Buenas yan Hafa Adai.

I wrote this letter because, under certain special circumstances, it is prudent for minority opinions, particularly opinions voted down in committee, to be expressed in writing and most particularly, if such dissent is not otherwise brought to light by those in the majority who state that they are “speaking on behalf of the committee,” as in this particular case.

Expressing such dissent, in writing, not only documents and clarifies the fact that a person’s vote of opposition on viewpoints were not, at the time, part of the majority vote. It also allows the current minority to express its reasons why it dissented and voted against a proposal—with hope that perhaps a new majority will overturn the forced action felt to be misjudged.

For these reasons, I feel I must document my objections to Ms. King-Hinds letter, dated March 6, 2006.

Before I begin, I want the college and the CNMI public to know that Ms. King-Hinds and I are absolutely the best of friends, and I dearly hope that this issue will pass and not upset our close friendship. Both Ms. King-Hinds and I, and each of our fellow board members love NMC and want it to be the best college that it can be. We have differing views on this current matter. That is all.

At the Northern Marianas College Board of Regents, Personnel Committee meeting on Thursday, Feb. 23, 2006, I objected to granting a 30-percent “severance bonus” to the NMC president. As I stated at the committee meeting, whether the president chose to retire or not to retire in December 2005 was a personal matter for him to decide, just as it was for all other eligible CNMI retirees. That it was a personal choice was concurred with by NMC’s legal counsel. Whether our president wished to retire or not was his personal choice, simple and clear.

At this meeting, I further objected to the term “severance bonus,” as such is commonly defined as a payment to one who is going from a paid situation to an unpaid situation, which is not the case here, as this is an issue of “retiring” or “not retiring.” In either case, there is in fact no severance involved.

The government of the CNMI has been duly paying the NMC president for his services—and upon his eventual retirement, the government of the CNMI will continue to pay his then due retirement benefits. When he chose not to retire in 2005, he lost his then legally available opportunity to receive a 30-percent retirement bonus, as did every other then eligible and now continuing CNMI government employee.

The fact is that the purported to-be-promised amount of $24,000 to the president’s contract is an additional, unfunded financial obligation to our college, thus I see it as a salary increase, and a salary increase that has been denied to all of NMC’s faculty and staff for many, very many years.

If granted, in my opinion, this will have a severe and very negative effect on the morale of our college’s faculty and staff. Somewhat ironically, and in support of this letter’s argument, I thoroughly agree with President Antonio DeLeon Guerrero wherein he stated in his letter dated Feb. 14, 2006, to Governor Fitial that, “a drastic budget reduction on Northern Mariana College will cause major negative repercussions on our educational programs, services, students, employee morale, and accreditation.”

Furthermore, I clearly see that giving our NMC president a $24,000 bonus clause, which is not to be provided to any other faculty, nor to any other staff member, likewise, will cause major negative repercussions on our educational programs, services, students, employee morale, and accreditation.

I will not renege on my responsibility for the general welfare of our college at a time when faculty and staff have not received a pay increase for the past seven years, since 1999, and when only some top management employees of the college had been afforded ungraded and increased salaries in recent years.

It is important to me that our CNMI public, and in particular, the faculty and staff of our Northern Marianas College, understand that the published public statement, issued on March 6, 2006, by Ms. King-Hinds includes my name, and purports to speak on my behalf, which it does not. Thus, I feel it’s necessary to publicly state my objection.

Specifically, in her third paragraph, “Naturally, this request by our president was not deemed unreasonable and the Board of Regents assured the president that his request would be considered and a decision when reached would be communicated to him.” Regarding the merit of the request, Ms. King-Hinds, when she expressed this statement to the president, did not actually poll, nor did she obtain a vote of the members of the board. Later, she understood that not all of the board agreed with her opinion, including myself.

It was also stated that “I, as chairperson of this body, along with my fellow members regent Eloise Furey and regent Elaine Hocog-Orilla, assured our president this his request would be placed on the agenda for consideration and action as soon as a quorum is established.” I wish to make it clear that I, Eloise Furey, have been opposed to such a board action since it was first forwarded for consideration.

The fact is that there were certain promises incorrectly made, relatively not long ago. The fact is that now we are in a financial crisis, not only at NMC but also in our entire community. For years and years our college faculty and staff have continued to bite the bullet. Do not neglect them; do not insult them.

Our faculty and staff, our board, and our president are all working diligently to help our college re-achieve our full accreditation status, this for the benefit of our matriculating students and our community as a whole. I’m trying to think of a good concluding statement, but it escapes me. Let’s just get over this and move on.

Eloise A. Furey
Member, NMC Board of Regents