CUC board members sued
Former Commonwealth Utilities Corp. public information officer Brad Ruszala and former CUC chief financial officer Matthew Yaquinto filed a lawsuit yesterday against CUC board members for allegedly holding closed-door meetings under the guise of “executive sessions” and using their positions to obtain private financial gain for themselves and their relatives.
Ruszala and Yaquinto, through George Lloyd Hasselback, are suing CUC board chair Adelina C. Roberto and board members Eric C. San Nicolas, Joseph T. Torres, Ignacio L. Perez, and Albert A. Taitano for violations of the Open Government Act, Government Ethics Code, and U.S. District for the NMI stipulated order.
Ruszala and Yaquinto asked the Superior Court to declare that the CUC board members are in violation of their fiduciary duties for their continued failure to comply with the OGA requirements.
They requested the court to declare that all ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, directives created by the CUC board in violation of OGA be declared null and void.
Ruszala and Yaquinto asked the court to issue an immediate order compelling the defendants to comply with the OGA in their roles CUC board members. The also asked the court to declare that the board members are in violation of their fiduciary duties for their continued failure to comply with the requirements of the Government Ethics Act and with the terms of the stipulated order.
Ruszala and Yaquinto asked the court to stop all further expenditure of public funds that are being expended for all activities that violate the CUC board’s fiduciary duties.
Hasselback stated in the complaint that the CUC board held a closed-door meeting in January 2016 under the guise of an “executive session” where discussions were held pertaining to the elimination of the position of public information officer that should have been held in a public session.
Hasselback said that, on May 4, 2015, the CUC board held another closed-door meeting where discussions were held pertaining to petitions for rate-increases that should have been held in a public session.
Hasselback said the defendants held a closed-door meeting under the guise of an “executive session” where discussions were held pertaining to alterations in CUC policy concerning promissory notes that should have been held in a public session.
The lawyer said that, on Nov. 24, 2015, some of the defendants introduced and voted on changes to CUC policy regarding the issuance and enforcement of promissory notes to CUC customers in arrears on payments, when certain defendants would benefit financially from such changes personally.
Hasselback said that in late 2015, some of the defendants influenced or attempted to influence customer service employees to help certain CUC customers avoid late payment, reconnection, and/other charges based upon their personal relationships to those customers.
Hasselback said that in March 2009, the U.S. District Court for the NMI issued a stipulated order in order to address CUC’s noncompliance with federal laws that pertain to clean water and safe drinking water.
The lawyer said that CUC has failed to fill certain senior management positions in a reasonably timely manner per the terms of the stipulated order.
There is no valid excuse for not filling the EPA stipulated order required key positions: Executive Director, Deputy Director and Water & Wastewater Division Manager -way over a year that these positions have been vacant. If the CUC cannot figure out how to advertise, interview, select and then make a salary offer high enough to attract and retain qualified people then they need to hire a private company (that has a profit motive) to supply the qualified people. Maybe the “powers that be” want to retain control by filling the positions in an “acting” capacity?
The problem is not the salary to offer qualified individuals. The problem is qualified individuals see the incompetence of the board members who are immature; have no idea how to manage the affairs of a utility; no regard for what true public service is all about (they only care about their per diem and board meeting stipends); and care more about taking from CUC than establishing good policies for the future. Once these qualified individuals go through the interview and read up on the problems of CUC, they want no part of it. Yaquinto and Brad were rare exceptions who believed they could make a difference in spite of the incompetence on the board. They may have thought that common sense would prevail over self-interests. Instead, they were fired because they did not fit the corrupt characteristic this board wanted in their management. They wanted people who can break the law secretly. . . May the courts expose these individuals and lock them up in jail!
Regardless of the salary offered, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to Google CNMI CUC Board and see the absurdity bared for all to see. After about an hour of reading the nonsense, ineptitude, and back-biting bared on the pages of Mvariety and the Tribune any reasonable, qualified candidate will not even submit his/her resume.
See the comments on the Mariana Variety web page. So many that hit the problem on the head.