Speaking in a very clear and authoritative voice, Saipan University adviser Agnes McPhetres told the court yesterday that she had nothing to do with SU \u201cmisrepresentation\u201d in China and said that she was in fact quite upset and felt betrayed by what had happened.<\/p>\n
\u201cI was very upset about that [wrong website information]. I immediately went to Mr. Park and [demanded] to pull out the website,\u201d she said during direct examination by assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Smith at U.S. District Court.<\/p>\n
\u201cI felt betrayed because I tried to build a good institution,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
McPhetres was the prosecution\u2019s last witness in the ongoing jury trial against SU founder Soon Kyung Park.<\/p>\n
Park faces multiple fraud charges relating to his recruitment and transport of some 100 Chinese students last year to Saipan. <\/p>\n
In her testimony, McPhetres also made clear that she absolutely had no knowledge that Park had been promising Chinese students employment in the CNMI.<\/p>\n
\u201cI never told him that students can work here. I didn\u2019t assure them that a regulation would pass,\u201d she said, referring to the government\u2019s proposed emergency regulation that would allow foreign students to work part-time in the CNMI.<\/p>\n
McPhetres said that she also informed Park that SU could only offer non-credit courses.<\/p>\n
\u201cI was not aware that he\u2019s offering credit courses,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
She said that when problems began popping up without resolution, she decided to distance herself from the institution. <\/p>\n
\u201cI never formally terminated [my services] but I stayed away from them,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
The last direct involvement she made for SU, she said, was to explain to the first batch of SU students the change of Tinian University to Saipan University sometime in September.<\/p>\n
Later on, she said, she received a call from then SU president Jullie Ulloa about students complaining about the facility and the lack of work.<\/p>\n
\u201cI didn\u2019t want to get involved with SU so I wrote a very strong letter, expressing my discontentment with what was happening,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
She said she saw SU to be a good institution but she was greatly dismayed by what had turned out. <\/p>\n
In an Oct. 7, 2003 letter to Park, she indicated that the president and students were very unhappy for being lied to and the university could not function for lack of money.<\/p>\n
She said that in her letter, she warned of the potential fate of SU if certain things were not corrected such as the lack of a surety bond.<\/p>\n
If there was no surety bond as required by the Board of Regents, SU would be closed down, she said in the letter.<\/p>\n
The bond is a guarantee fund, which could be tapped to send the students back to China.<\/p>\n
McPhetres said Park ignored her advice and did not secure a bond.<\/p>\n
\u201cI told them it\u2019s against the law and students can\u2019t be employed by the private sector here,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
During cross examination, defense attorney Joseph Aldan Arriola pointed out that McPhetres could not claim innocence in SU\u2019s affairs because she was one of SU\u2019s incorporators, she was a director of SU\u2019s board, and she was its secretary and treasurer.<\/p>\n
\u201cDo you know that you have fiduciary responsibility as officer of the corporation? And you\u2019re agreeing that you\u2019re (a director, an officer) and yet you said you kept your distance?\u201d stressed Arriola.<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd was it (letter) the first time that you addressed the financial matters?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n
McPhetres answered yes.<\/p>\n
\u201cWas it not you who consistently advised the president? Were you completely in the dark as to what was happening? How many board meetings have you conducted to discuss [important] matters?\u201d asked Arriola.<\/p>\n
McPhetres said the board only met once in six months but she noted that she had repeatedly requested verbally for meetings.<\/p>\n
Arriola cited that McPhetres had only two letters issued to SU: One was Aug. 6, 2003 and the last one was Oct. 7, 2003.<\/p>\n
\u201cDid you write the Oct. 7 letter to cover yourself because you knew that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was looking into it?\u201d asked Arriola, to which McPhetres replied a resounding, \u201cno!\u201d and justified that she only wanted to help because \u201cI didn\u2019t want the institution to go down.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBut you kept your distance,\u201d Arriola reminded her.<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause I was not consulted. I should have been asked. I was supposed to know but what am I going to do when the trust is not there?\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
While McPhetres was in a high and agitated tone, insisting that \u201cI wanted the institution to progress,\u201d the defense lawyer, said, \u201cnothing further, your honor.\u201d<\/p>\n
Coming to her defense, the prosecution lawyer made his redirect by pointing that she was not involved in SU\u2019s marketing in China.<\/p>\n
\u201cDid you have any responsibility when it comes to marketing? Did you go to China?\u201d Smith asked.<\/p>\n
McPhetres answered no to both questions.<\/p>\n
\u201cWere the students complaining about the promises that Park had made in China? He asked. <\/p>\n
She answered yes.<\/p>\n
Smith also showed an exhibit showing that Park signed a work-study contract with a student in China on April 10, 2003 or 10 days after TU received its provisional license.<\/p>\n
Smith said Park\u2019s recruitment and promise of work was done way in advance before the CNMI government ever made an attempt to amend the existing regulation.<\/p>\n
Through Smith, McPhetres also explained that by \u201ckeeping her distance, \u201d she meant that she was not acting as middle person for SU.<\/p>\n
\u201cSU had a president. I\u2019d rather that all communications are made straight to the administration, not to me. As a board of director, it\u2019s not my responsibility to manage the institution,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Speaking in a very clear and authoritative voice, Saipan University adviser Agnes McPhetres told the court yesterday that she had nothing to do with SU \u201cmisrepresentation\u201d in China and said that she was in fact quite upset and felt betrayed by what had happened.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-83847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-local-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83847","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\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=83847"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83847\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}