‘Legislative Bureau did not fail OGA test’

I am writing in response to Saipan Tribune’s April 27 headline coverage on “The Sunshine Project” pertaining to the Open Government Act. In short, the Legislative Bureau complied by being available during normal business hours, but the reporter did not return to inspect anything.

The coverage states that the Bureau took 15 days to comply with the request via electronic mail and without explanation for its delay. Saipan Tribune’s letter request was submitted to the Bureau on April 8, 2009, hand-delivered by the reporter who frequents the Bureau. I remember smiling after she left the office because it was unlike the reporter to submit a request in writing and leave before even attempting to get the requested information right away. Normally, we would agree for the information to be provided via e-mail if she is in a hurry. I did not treat the request any differently thinking that we already had an understanding that requested information will be provided via e-mail if she didn’t have time to wait. After she left however, I read the letter and the request was to make available the information for inspection.

Contrary to the news reporting that auditors were told to request a copy of documents, this reporter requested to make available the information for inspection. Therefore, with this request, I did not respond via e-mail within the 10 days requirement but instead was waiting for the reporter to return so she may inspect the information she requested. Since the 10th day falls on a Saturday (04/18/09) and I was scheduled to be on personal leave the following Monday and Tuesday, on Friday, April 17, the ninth day of the request, I prepared a written response letter to be given to the reporter when she does find the time to return to the Bureau to inspect the information being requested.

To my knowledge, the reporter didn’t return to the Bureau. I asked the staff next to my office if the reporter came by and was told that she didn’t. I checked with the Administrative Assistant for any telephone call messages and there was none. The reporter has my e-mail address and my work contact number, as well as my personal cellular phone number, which she normally uses. In this case, there was no communication from the reporter to advise when she was to return to inspect the information being requested. I thought she may be too busy or may have forgotten so I decided to e-mail her the Bureau’s response on Wednesday (04/22/09) so that I could clear this task from my pending assignments.

Incidentally, after a diligent search, it appears that the requested document did not even exist, so the Bureau did not fail to allow inspection of anything. The Bureau, however, voluntarily provided information beyond the scope of the request.

The Legislative Bureau did not flunk the OGA Test conducted by the Saipan Tribune. The Open Government Act mandates the Bureau to make available public records for inspection by any person during the established office hours. The Bureau complied but the reporter did not return to inspect anything.

It may be a miscommunication, or it may be purposely set up, but if a test is to be conducted, the conductor must be clear with the test requirement and should not be sneaky to set up failure. In addition, the grader must have something to grade and because the reporter never came back within the 10 days requirement, then how could a failing grade be given if the conductor herself failed to conduct the test properly?

Although there is still room for improvement, I stand by the Bureau’s performance responding to OGA requests generally and specifically in this instance.
[B] Glenna SP Reyes[/B] [I]Director, Legislative Bureau[/I]