The unfortunate dilemma of municipal councils

According to an article in local papers of May 8, the proposal for abolition of municipal councils, and the many misconceptions that have been associated thereto, has reared its ugly head anew. Once again, Mr. Felipe Q. Atalig and Rep. Arnold I. Palcios seem to be at loggerheads regarding the issue. The question of council abolition is a double-edged sword—and both sides have some points, but here are some facts by plain reading of the constitution:

1. The CNMI Constitution sets the guidelines for municipal (local) governments in Article VI. Section 2 is written to specify FOUR Mayors in FOUR districts: “Tinian and Aguiguan, ““Rota,” “Saipan,” and “The Islands North of Saipan.” However, section 6 is written so as to appear to establish a Municipal Council for each of only THREE districts: “Tinian and Aguiguan”, “Rota,” and “Saipan and the islands north of Saipan.” Ambiguous indeed!

2. Section 7 appears to be written with even more ominous consequences: “The powers of the municipal councils shall extend to all local matters of a predominately local nature not pre-empted by the Commonwealth Legislature…” This could give one the impression that the legislature COULD pre-empt the individual powers of the council (but NOT the Council itself!). How weird: to giveth and taketh in one foul sentence!

3. Section 8 (first sentence) specifically establishes “Tinian and Aguiguan” and “Rota” as “Chartered Municipalities” with no mention whatever of the other district(s) and this was affirmed by a Supreme Court question. (That did not give them a charter – only that they ARE chartered). Even weirder is the SECOND sentence of section 8: “Local taxes paid to the chartered municipal governments of Rota, and, Tinian and Aguiguan, and Saipan may be expended…” How can the document possibly include Saipan as a chartered entity without first establishing it as such?

A chartered municipality is entitled to its own level of “local self government” by enacting a self-governance document called a “charter” and snuggles nicely beneath the wings of state level constitutional authorization—but without state level interference in its local affairs that do not affect the overall state as a whole. Unfortunately, Saipan and the islands north of Saipan appear NOT to be afforded this same level of autonomy under the current constitution, which does NOT establish them as such, and, therefore, are probably not authorized to enact their own self-governance charter.

Under a charter system, found throughout most U.S. Political demography’s, Municipal Councils form an integral and necessary system of checks, balances and ordinance making duties at the local level. Elected “state level” senators and representatives carry the desires and wishes of their local constituents (as a group) to a higher level that affects the entire population of the state—and only those activities. The same is accomplished at the Federal level. This system effectively precludes duplication of duties and responsibilities at each level and results in a “separation of authorities” that serves to benefit the population best at each level. But nowhere else have I been able to find ANY legislative ability to “pre-empt” the authority of a Municipal council. In fact, everywhere I checked such idiocy was prohibited.

In other words, the Tinian and Rota Municipal councils, operating under a chartered local government system may have quite a different legal standing than that of Saipan. It is something of an enigma as to why the constitution mandates a “Municipal Council” for each island yet fails to establish Saipan as a “Municipality.” Regardless, all were robbed of their mandated authority by early legislators who, as stated by Mr. Atalig, appear to have usurped their power in a zealous power grab that to this day is inappropriately tolerated, and as yet unchallenged, by the people of these islands.

Whether or not Saipan actually has a legal claim to maintain a municipal council even though authorized by the constitution, especially in light of the absence of the constitutional establishment as a “Chartered Municipality”, is a question yet to be answered—but I applaud loudly the attempts by Saipan to not only hold onto its Municipal council, but to give it some teeth as well. The shortsighted and myopic view of the lieutenant governor when he vetoed Tinian’s recent attempt at expanding its charter, was both unfortunate and a desperate attempt to hold onto that which was unceremoniously “grabbed” years ago (1983).

The speculative proposal to abolish municipal councils is nothing more than an overt attempt to permanently secure the “power” that was misplaced by possibly inappropriate legislative actions of the past. Such authority belongs in the hands of the people—not the political sycophants currently embroiled in endless minutia and pointless gamesmanship in order to avoid dealing with the real problems confronting the CNMI.

Perhaps the next such attempt by Tinian will not be as ineptly received and we would surely welcome Rota to join in this attempt to restore our constitutionally mandated right to local self government and control over strictly local matters without the meddling interference from the state. It is little more than wishful thinking to believe that any legislatively driven attempt at abolishing this constitutional mandate, and thereby consolidating yet more power into the hands of the self-serving few, would be well received by the people.

Meanwhile, Rep. Palacios, with all due respect, please keep your hands off Municipal councils. You have much bigger fish to fry.