Minority: Part-time initiative ‘flawed’

House minority leader Arnold I. Palacios considers the proposed part-time initiative as “flawed,” citing that it lacks provisions addressing the part-time issue.

“It says part-time Legislature but it doesn’t tell you how part-time is part-time. It doesn’t tell you how many sessions or meetings to conduct. So what’s part-time for them? This proposal is flawed,” said Palacios in an interview yesterday.

As for the initiative’s primary aims to reduce the Legislature’s cost, “there’s no need to amend the Constitution,” he said.

Further, Palacios said he is opposed to the proposal “because I don’t work part-time.”

“As a lawmaker, I’m on call anytime. Service can’t be done ‘part-time,’” he said. “So the question is, is it a political issue or a constitutional issue?”

The proposal, which may be discussed in today’s or tomorrow’s session, aims to cut the lawmakers’ operations budget from $155,000 to $75,000 each.

Palacios said that, if a lawmaker spends for consultants and experts as part of the lawmaking process, even $155,000 may prove inadequate. Resources, he said, are most crucial for committee functions.

“How can you do your committee work if you are stripped of needed funds? It reduces your ability to work efficiently,” he said.

He said to ignore this reality “is to walk in denial.”

“We’d be walking in denial all our life if we say we can operate without these funds,” he said.

For his part, Rep. Joseph Deleon Guerrero said that operations funds do end up with the community. He cited that 90 percent of mails that lawmakers receive are solicitations from the community.

“The fund goes back to the community. It doesn’t stay here in our office,” he said.

He said the initiative may have been introduced only “to gain political mileage.”

He warned the compensation package, which is to be decided by the next Legislature, may be worded in such a way that it would have a reverse effect—higher spending.

“Instead of saving up, we may end up spending more if the language does not specify how many sessions and meetings must take place. You could hold sessions after sessions, meetings after meetings and in the end, get paid more than the current rate,” he said.

In Palau, for instance, lawmakers are paid $1,000 each per session.

He said the proposal essentially asks lawmakers “to reduce our ability to work.”

“I had served as committee chairman and I know that when you remove the committee resources, you’re reducing your ability to do better service that is expected of you,” he said.

He dismissed the proposal as “very short-sighted but looks impressive politically.”

House Legislative initiative 14-8, authored by first-time congressman Clyde Norita, aims to amend Article II of the Constitution to get rid of lawmakers salary of $39,300 and reduce their operational funds from $155,000 to $75,000 each.

He said the measure would result in over $2 million annual savings for the government.

Norita has said that the Legislature can ably operate with the huge budget cut.

The initiative’s committee report was earlier defeated, with House minority members voting against it. Authorities said the initiative can still be tackled and voted on.