The $145-million fiscal year 2018 budget bill sailed through the House of Representatives on Monday on a handy vote of 17 \u201cyeas\u201d but failed to secure the backing of three opposition lawmakers, who questioned the inclusion of a clause that would give elected officials an 80-percent salary hike, while giving civil service employees just a 5-percent increase. <\/p>\n
Voting against the bill\u2014mainly because of the salary hike\u2014were Reps. Edwin Propst (Ind-Saipan), Vinson Sablan (Ind-Saipan), and minority leader Edmund Villagomez (Ind-Saipan).<\/p>\n
The House minority bloc is composed of Reps. Villagomez, Propst, Sablan, Blas \u201cBJ\u201d Jonathan Attao (Ind-Saipan), and Lorenzo I. Deleon Guerrero (Ind-Saipan).<\/p>\n
Both Villagomez and Propst questioned the legality of the pay hike. <\/p>\n
Propst pointed out that lawmakers in the19th Legislature had a pecuniary interest when they approved to pass the law that paved the way for the pay hike since many of them knew that they were going back in the succeeding legislature, and therefore should have abstained from the vote. <\/p>\n
Villagomez agreed with this and cited Propst\u2019s bill, House Bill 20-39, which proposes to remove the salary increases provided in Public Law 19-83. Villagomez co-sponsored that bill.<\/p>\n
The bill pointed out that the Advisory Commission on the Compensation for Elected Officials went beyond \u201cthe 60-day limit and failed to submit a report to the Legislature within the specified timeframe.\u201d <\/p>\n
\u201cDue to their inability to act in a timeframe required by law, the Legislature finds that the increase in salaries for elected officials should be considered null and void,\u201d stated the bill cited by Villagomez. <\/p>\n
Sablan did not really delve too much on the legality of the salary hike. His concerns were more on the basis of the salary increase. <\/p>\n
\u201cI wanted [to know] if the work of the commission sufficed,\u201d he said, questioning the basis of the salary increases. <\/p>\n
\u201cThey did their work and made some recommendations but the report that was used to so-called \u2018calculate\u2019 the consumer price index or so was late, so there were issues with that,\u201d said Sablan. He added that he was more focused on \u201chow the raise was given\u201d as opposed to the reasoning behind the raise.<\/p>\n
\u201cI voted no because I wasn\u2019t satisfied with the legal interpretation of the counsel,\u201d he added. <\/p>\n
Ways and Means committee chair Rep. Angel Demapan (R-Saipan) said the salary hike is already a law, and the committee had a fiduciary duty to stand by and uphold the law.<\/p>\n
\u201cWithout any litigation ordering otherwise, the Ways and Means Committee is bound to abide by the law and [PL 19-83] set those new salary scales,\u201d he said, adding that it wasn\u2019t necessarily his committee that recommended the increase but rather \u201cthe committee has a duty to follow the law\u2014and that is the existing law.\u201d<\/p>\n
Demapan also pointed out that both Gov. Ralph DLG Torres and Lt. Gov. Victor B. Hocog\u2019s salary increases were not included in the budget proposal since Public Law 19-83 states that the increase would be implemented in the upcoming term, meaning the 2019 governor and lieutenant governor would get the increased salaries.<\/p>\n
The 2019 governor and lieutenant governor would be compensated at $120,000 and $100,000 per annum respectively. <\/p>\n
The budget bill indicates an increase of $30,700 for both House and Senate members while mayors of each senatorial district would get an increase of $31,800, effectively bumping legislators\u2019 salaries to $70,000 per annum and $75,000 per annum for mayors.<\/p>\n
The budget bill is currently awaiting adoption by the Senate Fiscal Affairs Committee, chaired by Sen. Jude Hofschneider (R-Tinian), before being acted upon by the Senate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The $145-million fiscal year 2018 budget bill sailed through the House of Representatives on Monday…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[900],"tags":[15529,20,194,1275],"class_list":["post-257437","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-featured","tag-advisory-commission","tag-budget","tag-house-bill","tag-public-law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257437","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=257437"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257437\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}