Previous Story
Lawmakers urged to junk proposed pension obligation bond
Several CNMI retirees are urging the Legislature to junk House Legislative Initiative 17-5, which proposes the flotation of a pension obligation bond to help the NMI Retirement Fund.
In a message to lawmakers and Fund officials, retiree Angelyn Sills expressed opposition to the bill, citing its negative impact not only on retirees but to the Commonwealth in general.
The House passed the legislation yesterday and it will now go to the Senate for action.
Sills, whose message was posted in the CNMI Retirees’ Blog since Thursday, said that lawmakers should consider several issues prior to taking a vote on the legislation.
“Please do not vote to support a constitutional change. Do not vote for HLI 17-5, I implore you. As a retiree with a direct interest in the health of the CNMI Retirement Fund, and as a concerned citizen with a direct interest in the long-term success of fiscal and fiduciary activities and responsibilities in the CNMI and in the NMI Legislature, I am opposed to HLI 17-5, a proposal for a constitutional change to allow pension obligation bonds,” she stated.
Sills believes the bond flotation as a solution to the Fund mess will actually worsen fiscal problems for the CNMI and the Fund.
“There is not any identified reasonable and clear means of funding such a POB. You should not obligate the government without explaining how this additional unfunded liability will be repaid. How will you repay this?” she asked.
According to her, “it is seriously unwise and irresponsible to say that this action would be exempt from Article 4 which was put in place to prevent such unwise and fiscally irresponsible action.”
Sills told lawmakers that they have sworn to uphold the Constitution, “not to play with it.”
“Instituting changes in the Constitution now means that the very serious consequences of your action will have to be dealt with by future governors and legislators and citizens, and you will be to blame for supporting this unwise and irresponsible act,” she added.
For Sills, re-introducing the POB, which was defeated or ignored in a previous election, does not necessarily mean insufficient publicity. The real explanation, she said, is probably that voters did not approve of the plan.
According to her, more publicity means an attempt to push an idea to the public that is not responsible and is not sensible.
Besides Sills, other retirees have also spoken out against the proposed POB in postings and reactions on the retirees’ blog.
By Moneth Deposa
Reporter
