Confused ombudsperson’s role in CNMI

At the outset, I was willing to see that Ms. Pamela Brown, US Department of Interior’s ombudsperson settles down in her new job. How gratifying it was to hear her declare on the Jon Anderson Show that “I am not an advocate”. In other words, she’s taken her new job with neutrality supposedly referring complaints to appropriate agencies for assistance or disposition.
But this declaration has lost its substance when Ms. Brown allegedly appeared in court representing a client. I understand she told the court that she wasn’t representing the individual sitting with her at a certain hearing. Well, if she’s standing next to that person obviously she must be her counsel. Now, this brings up a question: is Ms. Brown allowed to engage in private practice while serving in her official capacity as an ombudsman in a non-labor related case?

I understand she’s also appeared in labor hearings conducted by the local labor office. Is her appearance warranted or one of the usual “familiarization tour” as an ombudsperson? Wouldn’t such appearance make her alleged neutrality suspect? Or do we dismiss such appearance as inconsequential or is it another of those quiet instructions from the main office in Washington to eavesdrop on labor cases? And if Ms. Brown isn’t an advocate, then what’s her role anyway?

Too, I learned that she wants to retain a foreigner as an interpreter for the ombudsman office. It’s interesting how this intention runs contrary to the constant criticism of the NMI by Interior for hiring foreign workers and now they are into swallowing their own filthy saliva! I mean, it’s understandable how one contradicts a pronouncement but then the plan to retain aliens as interpreters is a grand confirmation that Interior is equally vulnerable to violating its own position. It’s the usual dosage of “don’t watch what we do” but “do what we tell you to do”, yeah?

This is an interesting aspect in how Interior’s ombudsman’s office says one thing and does the exact opposite. Excuse me, Ms. Brown, we weren’t born yesterday. If anything, take another legal research into whether your plan to retain an alien interpreter isn’t contrary to pertinent federal law. If so, think about it and refrain from violating federal law in much the same way as former OIA helmsman Allen Stayman and White House Intergovernmental Agency evil genius Jeffrey Farrow.

Like everybody else treading planet earth, we too were born with heads on our shoulders and a pair of eyes and ears and brain cells so we could discern all the repulsive agenda to compromise the democratic process in this American community. I hope you veer-off the usual OIA agenda of ruination and stick to your fiduciary responsibility in forthright fashion as a neutral ombudsperson.

Ingram’s trial by the news media

Verification of information is a basic tenet in journalism. It’s the responsible way to secure and grant your subject fairness especially on sensitive matters. That a reporter concocted a reckless and drunken driving story without verification shows how some of us in this business have taken our responsibilities to new lows.

It’s the most irresponsible thing to do as a journalist.

Did anybody take the extra mile to verify why the DPS commissioner swerved out on the public highway? Did the reporter know that the commissioner hasn’t had an alcohol drink for the last 26 years? Since when was there a substantive change in journalism which frees a reporter to make up quotes for his or her subject? Sounds more like the San Francisco Chronicle reporter who looked at himself in the mirror and concocted quotes to fit his agenda.

Being in this business doesn’t grant journalists the right to ruin and violate the very basic tenets of news reporting. It goes to illustrate that sensationalism has become their forte in a business where responsibility and fairness still reign prominently. If credibility matters to any of us, then one must return to basics in responsible manner to report news events with fairness. Nobody in this business has the absolute authority to recklessly print self-concocted stories that bring credibility to its knees. Let’s keep it responsible, fair and honest even if it means selling less hard copies!