Previous Story
Oversight on utility agency
|
Posted on Mar 09 2001
The Issue: Plans to probe the government-run utility agency by the House Committee on Public Utilities.
Our View: It’s a good move to keep CUC’s excess spending and picnic attitude in check.
A lot of what has gone wrong with the disposition of tax revenues in the government-operated utility agency boils down to the adolescent attitude of everything that we know of as government.
This wasteful attitude begins with the board of directors who attempt to micro-manage CUC as though it is an obligatory job description. It neglects that its basic role is one of policy-making, the daily management of the agency being the fiduciary responsibility of its executive director.
Given the bad economic times, it would be interesting to probe why the decision to hire more people and the generous salary raise when most others must endure reduced public services as a result of revenue loss. Amidst a mounting financial crisis bordering on the meltdown, can CUC really justify playing Santa Claus at the expense of ignorant taxpayers? Most importantly, is the loose attitude on taxpayers contribution its definition of accountability?
It seems quite true that CUC has never had any sense of accountability in the management and disposition of public funds. To this date, it hasn’t been able to justify the expenditure of some $99 million in CIP funds. It seems too that while it loosely spends public funds, it has the audacity to even ask the legislature for funds to cushion the cost of fuel. A lot is wrong with its perception of belt-tightening and it is far from being an accountable organization in the way it spends taxpayers money.
The only alternative for this agency to survive is privatization. It’ll do away with grand inefficiencies to the benefit of all consumers. Perhaps it’s about time that this alternative is seriously given serious review to ensure both adequate utilities and service in the CNMI. Si Yuus Maase`!
