$12,940 in attorney billings to defend AG on OPA investigation

The CNMI government was billed $12,940 by a private counsel hired to represent Attorney General Edward Buckingham in his official and personal capacity in connection with an Office of the Public Auditor investigation of the AG’s hosting of a party for a delegate candidate last year.

Atty. G. Anthony Long had a $200 an hour contract with the government to defend Buckingham.

Given his hourly rate and the amount he billed the government, Long worked 64.7 hours on the AG issue from September 2010 to February 2011.

But six months after Gov. Benigno R. Fitial acknowledged receiving in December the OPA report on the investigation involving the attorney general, the public has yet to see a copy of the report or at least portions of it that will show OPA’s conclusion and findings.

The Fitial administration and OPA continue to decline releasing the report for public inspection, under the Open Government Act request, citing “confidentiality” of the report.

Press secretary Angel Demapan, when asked for comment, reiterated that OPA reports are “confidential and not subject to release.”

“No further comment on a closed issue,” he said.

He, however, said that the services that Long provided to the AG “have been concluded since February 2011.” Demapan said the total billing was $12,940.

Buckingham denied on Wednesday during an interview with KSPN that his lawsuit against public auditor Michael Pai over the hiring of two lawyers is retaliation against OPA’s investigation of the attorney general.

The press secretary said yesterday that the issues and facts are specified in the AG’s complaint.

“This is a matter pending before the Superior Court,” he said, declining to comment further on the issue.

But private citizen Glen Hunter, one of the individuals who filed a complaint with OPA last year regarding Buckingham’s hosting of the Covenant Party’s delegate candidate gathering, said yesterday it would not surprise him if Buckingham’s lawsuit filed against public auditor Michael Pai on Monday over the hiring of counsels was a retaliatory action against OPA’s ethics investigation into Buckingham.

That gathering for the Covenant Party’s delegate candidate, Joseph N. Camacho, was held at the governor’s private residence in Gualo Rai on Aug. 28, 2010.

“It is public knowledge that a report with recommendations was given to the governor in December 2010… Is the timing simply coincidental? I don’t believe so,” Hunter said, responding to a Saipan Tribune request for comment.

A month later, the Office of the Attorney General started reviewing and investigating OPA’s contracts for two lawyers, one of whom was Joe Pryzuski who was the OPA lead investigator for the issue regarding Buckingham’s hosting of a gathering for a delegate candidate.

Hunter said a review of the report that OPA gave the governor may shed more light on this entire issue.

But just like the media, Hunter’s request to inspect a copy of the report has been denied.

“I do believe these reports should be public,” he added.

Hunter said it is “more than odd” that with all the other questionable professional contracts that this government has engaged in, “the contract that Buckingham decided to pick out and bring to court happens to be that of the attorney from OPA who had investigated him.”

“I also question the timing of Buckingham’s actions. He received the OPA report on his alleged misconduct in mid-December, and his own complaint shows that he began investigating the OPA attorney just days afterward, in early January,” he said.

Hunter cited samples of questionable contracts that the OAG has either approved or ignored, including the Fitial administration’s hiring of Jenner & Block for the federalization lawsuit against the U.S. government, the Department of Public Health’s lawsuit regarding the dialysis center in which attorneys were hired on contingency and walked away with over $600,000 in one suit alone, and the NMI Retirement Fund’s outsourced professional legal contracts that included over $500,000 to one attorney in a three-year span.

He also cited the Commonwealth Utilities Corp.’s professional legal contracts with outside counsels, including one who banked nearly $200,000 in a year, and the sole-sourced contract for ARRA management.

“And most ironic of all, a sole-sourced contract for personal defense representation for Ed Buckingham related to OPA’s investigation of his actions, signed by himself and the governor and paid for by taxpayers,” Hunter said.

The public auditor repeatedly said the law prohibits OPA from allowing inspection of OPA records and information related to an OPA ethics investigation.

Saipan Tribune invoked Open Government Act request with OPA, the latest was on May 23, to be able to inspect the report. OPA said it cannot defy existing law.

“As mentioned in OPA’s responses to your prior requests for information, while OPA appreciates your interest in the substance of its ethics inquiries, due to confidentiality restrictions OPA cannot comment on any ethics investigations pursuant to 1 CMC § 8563. This restriction does not cease due to a mere passage of time,” Pai told Saipan Tribune.

Likewise, under the Open Government Act Section 9917 (a), if public inspection of records would violate Commonwealth law, they are not subject to disclosure, he said.

Pai said OPA has determined that the type of records requested fall within this category, pursuant to the Commonwealth Ethics Act and the Open Government Act.

“While the lack of OPA’s ability to comment and the confidentiality of records relating to Commonwealth Ethics Act investigations might be dissatisfying to the press and appear unfair to the interested public, OPA cannot defy existing law. OPA must defer to the wisdom of the CNMI Legislature in enacting laws in the best interest of the public,” Pai added.

Lawmakers do not want to comment on the issue involving the AG and the public auditor, or the OPA report on the AG.

The public auditor has yet to respond to media inquiries related to the attorney general’s June 13 lawsuit against the public auditor over OPA’s hiring of lawyers.

But a plain reading of the law indicates that OPA has the power to hire and procure as deemed necessary by the public auditor.

1 CMC 2305. Public Auditor: Staff partly reads: (a) The Public Auditor may appoint and remove such employees as he or she deems necessary to perform the duties of the office. These employees may include assistant public auditors, accountants, auditors, financial management analysts, investigators, attorneys, paralegals, secretaries, clerks and the like.

1 CMC 2306, meanwhile, states that the public auditor may obtain the services of independent certified public accountants, qualified management consultants, or other professional persons, as the public auditor deems necessary to assist in carrying out his or her duties…

OPA’s personnel regulations also give the public auditor authority to appoint and remove employees as he deems necessary to perform the duties of the office.