MHLO improvements is not political

This is in response to Ms. Debra Rosario’s letter to the editor published in your paper’s Oct. 28, 2005 edition referencing a commentarial letter regarding the Marianas-Hawaii Liaison Office. I only wish to comment on Ms. Rosario’s statement that the “improvements to the said office came in a little TOO LATE.” Based on the context of her letter, I am aware that she was neither criticizing the operations of this office nor my management of it, however, the statement compels me to raise several points here.

Yes, it is only “too late” if we are speaking in terms of the present administration’s incumbency. But improvement, at any time, should be welcomed. MHLO was established and became fully operational in 1979. The math will give you a total of 26 years. That is five administrations ago, including the current one. Putting it in that perspective, I ask how late is “too late”? Again, improvement at any time can only be welcomed. But let us give credit, where credit is due as I have uncovered many good works done by previous administrators of this office. We just are in the habit of complaining yet bite our tongues when praise is due. It is never too late to serve the students who come to Hawaii to further their education. It is never too late for patients and their escorts under the Medical Referral Program to be treated with dignity and provided efficient service as expected of this office to render. But the fact is, a conclusion over a year ago was made that there was a definite need to further improve the services of the MHLO and from there, the governor and lieutenant governor took the appropriate steps for such improvements to be realized.

What will surprise many as it did me, is what really is behind the poor perception of this office. The unknown fact is how rudely and abrasively the staff of this office has been treated by appallingly demanding individuals such as elected officials and/or their spouses. Almost daily, they were subjected to intimidation and harassment. The chain-of-command was blurred; not knowing who to answer to, who had the final say. Priorities were confused and the staff morale was low, naturally affecting quality of service.

For many years, calls were made and letters addressed to the governor’s office, to senators, congressmen, the Public Auditor’s Office, and perhaps even to the bishop and Larry King about the staff’s ineptitude, wastefulness, inefficiency, unethical conduct, etc. etc. However, many of these complaints, I have come to know, were done out of spite simply because our people just cannot take “no” for an answer. And perhaps, because the staff previously was forced to bend the law to accommodate individuals related to government officials or some prominent citizen of the Commonwealth, others who became aware of such accommodations try to exercise their “rights” as well. This created a work environment of hostility and ever-increasing exasperation. Understandably, productivity suffered.

This staff was in need of firm directions as well as respect and appreciation for their dedication and hard work. Many times how the staff treats its customers or clients is influenced by the attitude of management. If the attitude is lax and unresponsive, then we know what type of fruit the tree will bear. This office CANNOT function with such an attitude, either toward our people or from manager to staff. We have to be diligent and we have to be responsive—24/7/365. Yet few seem to appreciate or understand the demands put upon this office.

The governor and lieutenant governor were made aware of the problems but did not know immediately who exactly to appoint to manage this office as the job requires not only the obvious management skills but some degree of knowledge in ambassadorship, emergency management, grief management, rapid transit management, etc. etc. When I received the call with the offer to manage this office, I knew the challenges before me but the office’s noticeable improvements were easily achieved due in large part to the willingness of the staff to cooperate and dedicate themselves beyond the description of their duties and responsibilities. They do not departmentalize themselves where they limit their services and refuse to do more. It is truly a team effort.

This office does care for the residents of the Commonwealth—the students, and the patients. We enjoy seeing a sense of relief in our students knowing that they can call on us at any time to assist them as they get situated in Hawaii while getting over their homesickness and it gives us tremendous pleasure to see patients depart for home on their way to full recovery, but we also provide comfort, compassion, and most taxing of this office is that we also share in the grief of families when we do lose patients. This office does not simply provide a taxi and paper-pushing service. The staff gives so much and more. What may be overdue but never too late is a heartfelt “si Yu’us ma’ase” to these few but exemplary individuals.

Lastly, although we appreciate Mr. Sakisat’s favorable comments of the MHLO, we are somewhat disturbed by his unofficial polling of the staffers and reporting of 96 percent pro-Babauta-Benavente in his Nov. 4, 2005 letter to the editor. I am concerned that these employees might suffer some type of retribution from whoever immerges victorious other than the current governor and lieutenant governor. Perhaps during a candid conversation, some of the staffers disclosed to Mr. Sakisat who they favored to win the gubernatorial race but that 96 percent is his own estimate and does not accurately reflect the voting preference of this office.

I thank you for your time and spatial considerations.

JEANNETTE D. SABLAN
Liaison officer, Marianas-Hawaii Liaison Office