A response to Senator Reyes

Let me respond to Sen. Pete P. Reyes in the same venue in which he made his remarks (in the June 8 issue of this paper). Senator Reyes was unhappy that I did not consult with him prior to my voicing an opinion in my column, On My Mind (found on the web and in this paper’s Sunday edition), about his reaction to the governor’s veto of three of Senator Reyes’ bills. The senator claimed that the vetoes were a personal reaction by the governor, and I disagreed.

Senator, I do not own a TV set. I get my information mainly from reading the two local papers. I often do call parties for information related to subjects I write about, and often obtain copies of, and read, related documents as well.

I did not do so in this case because, to the best of my recollection, in all the coverage given your unhappiness with the governor’s vetoes, not once was any substantive argument included about the issues regarding Senate Bill 14-11, Senate Draft 1, which concerned DNA testing in paternity suits. There was no clue that the governor’s reasoning was in error, and that your objections did, indeed, have factual grounds.

I know your are articulate, and do not hesitate to voice your opinion. Since I found no explanation of your position in the papers I made the assumption that, therefore, there were no real grounds for the position you were taking on this bill.

The other two bills that were vetoed—one, proposing to abolish celebration of President’s Day so as to observe Martin Luther King day, and the other proposing to restrict Marianas Visitors Authority’s hiring of nonresident workers—are both more a matter of opinion than a matter of fact, and there did not seem a need for further clarification.

I realize that there is a risk in depending on what the newspapers report and what they don’t, on what approach they take. But I simply don’t have the resources to verify every piece of newspaper-provided data that I use.

On the bright side, at least now, with your detailed explanation of why SB 14-11 should not have been vetoed, we may all understand what the real issue is. Indeed, perhaps it will encourage legislators to override the veto of this bill. It’s a pity the explanation wasn’t provided sooner.

Senator, I meant no disrespect. Our relationship has been a respectful one, and I hope it continues that way.

Ruth L. Tighe
Tanapag, Saipan