[Note: Provided here in its entirety is the January 27 meeting note taken by Secretary of Justice April Dawn Skilling and shared with the President and Congress on January 28.]
Background:
On January 21, 2014, President Mori met with Congress
at its temporary chambers in the Central Facility at Palikir. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss
problems identified with the public project appropriation process as it relates
to the implementation project and usage of the Project Control Document
(PCD). No staff was present during this
initial meeting. During the meeting, it
was agreed that a follow-up meeting would be held, with staff from both
Congress and the Executive, so that the problems could be fully discussed with
input from the staff. A joint working
group was created including Chairmen Urusemal, Simina, George, and Christian,
as well as Vice President Alik and Secretaries Ikosia, A. Skilling, Itimai, and
Director Adolph. While President Mori
wanted the follow-up meeting held over the next few days in order to move ahead
with implementation of recently approved laws, for various reasons, Congress
was unable to meet until the proposed date of January 27, 2014.
The January 27th meeting was scheduled to
be held at 1:30 p.m. in the Presidential Conference Room to: (1) discuss and work out problems with the
Project Control Document (PCD) and the appropriation process by Congress as
they relate to the ability of the Executive Branch to implement public projects;
and, (2) to stop ongoing violations of the Udot
case, which case defines the Constitutional powers of Congress to appropriate
public funds and the Executive to fully execute and implement all national
laws.
Summary:
The meeting started at 2:05 p.m. after the location
for the meeting was changed by Congress to the Congressional chambers in the
Central Facility. Congressional members
present included Speaker Halbert, Chairman George, and Chairman Simina. Missing were Chairman Urusemal and Chairman
Christian. No Congressional staff
attended. Executive members present
included President Mori, Secretary Ikosia, Secretary Itimai, Secretary April
Skilling, AAG Atanraoi-Reim, Esiri Edward, Molina Seneres, Sohs John, Marcellus
Akapito, and Karnim Judah. Missing were
Vice President Alik and Director Adolph.
The President noted that no staff attended on behalf
of Congress and expressed his disappointment that without staff, the discussion
would only be one-sided and that there would be no one (on the Congressional
side) to take notes with staff input into the discussion, and no one on
Congress’ side to reduce the outcome of the meeting to a written agreement.
Speaker Halbert responded that he did not believe this
meeting was for mid-level staff and that not having so many people would make
it easier to get things done. Chairman
George stated that they (Congress) believed the President had analyzed the
problems and was present to share with Congress ideas to improve; therefore no
Congressional staff was present. “I
thought this would be time to dialogue and share information to improve.”
The President emphasized that while the PCD is within
the jurisdiction of the Executive, it cannot work well without the
Congressional part improving, too. And,
that he did not just want to “talk, talk, talk” but to come to an agreement
with Congress about needed improvements.
Speaker Halbert responded that talking is very important and that
“talking is the Micronesian way.”
President Mori agreed stating but added that “beyond talking, there must
be action to follow up.” President Mori
additionally pointed out that if there were continued violations of law, there
would really be a problem.
Chairman Simina asked what problems the President had
with P.L. 18-35?
President Mori outlined one of the problems in
Chairman Christian’s portion of the bill noting that there was no breakdown and
that it must be specific enough so that Congress does not get involved in it
after the appropriation was completed.
An example the President gave was in the line item “leadership
travel.” How does that help us on the
Executive side, President Mori asked.
Once the money for the projects is appropriated, there should be no
coaching by or deciding by Congress on how the money should be spent. But the appropriation example given does not
say who is travelling, where, for what purpose, etc. Therefore, in the absence of public hearings
or Committee Reports, the Executive must go back to Congress to get clarification. This slows down the process when
pre-appropriation discussions, public hearings, and Committee Reports on the
part of Congress could resolve the problem.
Chairman Simina asked if it was just specificity that
President Mori was seeking, and President Mori responded that there should be
“at least guidelines.” Chairman George
asked why not use the PCD to disapprove projects on the basis of no guidelines,
purpose, etc.? President Mori stated
that the Executive is trying to improve the PCD, but that the appropriation
process for public funds, according to Chairman Christian, was “just the nature
of the beast.” Chairman George followed
up stating that (1) the Executive could first line item veto any public project
that did not contain enough specificity, and (2) that when the PCD was
submitted, if the Executive (as allottee) was not satisfied, it could stop
there.
President Mori responded that he had already been
accused, as the Allottee, of failing to comply with the requirements of the PCD
(involving the thickness of a public project road). (Note:
this is the complaint that brought the entire process of public project
appropriations, the implementation process, the deficiencies of the PCD, and
the Udot case, to the
forefront). President Mori then stated
“we are ready to correct our side; what are you (Congress) ready to correct?”
Speaker Halbert stated that he had worked with
Secretary Itimai to assist him. “We
agreed to help him. He asked us to
complete the PCD and then he (TC&I) would check them.” This process had been ongoing since
2010. “I know we are not supposed to be
involved. But every year I ask
(Secretary Itimai), are you ready to take over?”
President Mori stated that the Constitution is very
clear. Congress cannot get involved after
the law is passed, and added that there must be consultations with constituents
ahead of time, public hearings, and Committee Reports. President Mori emphasized that “we want to
stop the abuse.” Furthermore, President
Mori stated that we must start linking projects to the issue of economic growth
in order to prepare for 2023. President
Mori admitted that when he was in Congress, he did the same thing as what is
currently happening, unaware of the dictates of the Udot case. But now
that he read and understands the Udot
case and has raised his hand to uphold the law as President, he understands
that things must change.
President Mori went on to say that there must be
attachments provided to the Executive regarding public projects such as
documentation of meeting with constituents ahead of time. “Rather than clarify the PCD after the fact,
there should be meetings with constituents, public hearings, and Committee
Reports,” which documentation could then be in the bill itself or attached to
the PCD for clarification and inclusion of technical requirements/aspects
without having to return to Congress.
Chairman Simina said that after legislation is passed
and money appropriated, then the allottee must enforce it through the PCD. “I thought generic details allowed more
flexibility to implement the project,” he stated. Chairman George also agreed that general
terms allowed for more flexibility.
President Mori responded that the Executive should be guided by public
hearings and Committee Reports, and that the PCD should reflect it. “Without that part, it is just guesswork,”
President Mori remarked. An example of
one of the problems with the language being too general included an
appropriation for repatriation of remains.
President Mori pointed out that this appropriation provided no guidance
but left the implementer to wonder whose remains? From where? From Guam, the US, Korea? Are we even allowed to repatriate remains
from another country?
President Mori asked why there was a double standard –
one for the Operational Budget of the Executive where public hearings were held
and one for Congress’ public projects where no public hearings are held. Speaker Halbert asked why they should be
the same stating that whereas the operational budget is something Congress must
pass, there is no such requirement for public projects because public projects
are not required by law. President
Mori explained that both appropriations expend public funds and that the public
had a right to be informed ahead of the passage of the public project
appropriations so that the public could be heard on what they want, noting that
the public may view the project needs differently than Congress.
President Mori asked again what Congress is willing to
offer? Consultations before the bill
passage; public hearings; Committee Reports?
There was no response or counteroffer from the Congress members present
to President Mori.
Chairman George stated that they do speak with
constituents in order to determine the public projects. President Mori suggested that if public
hearings were held, then the results of these meetings with constituents could
be presented, which would help with the implementation process and PCD after
the law was passed.
President Mori asked that both sides come to a
voluntary agreement concerning the need to have pre-passage consultations with
constituents, public hearings, and Committee Reports, and that the results
would then be attached to the PCD for clarification, eliminating the need to
return to Congress or have Congress violate the Udot case by having to become involved and decide how funds
were to be spent or who would be the recipients.
Chairman George and Chairman Simina both inquired
about the implementation of the $4.9 million.
President Mori responded that more guidance was needed (to implement the
law). Chairman Simina asked if (in the
future) it would be helpful if each state was in a separate appropriation, not
lumped together. President Mori agreed
it would help, especially since the state appropriations have little
commonality as between states.
Speaker Halbert asked if, the way President Mori was
looking at the Udot case,
amendments violated Udot? President Mori explained that no, amendments
did not violate the Udot case if
the implementation process on a particular project had not yet begun.
Chairman George questioned how the Udot case applied to Congress as
it did not involve the prosecution of Congressional members. President Mori explained that the Udot case was referenced in cases
where allottees were prosecuted and that the Udot case referred to the appropriation and implementation
process including Congress’ role and the Executive’s role as defined in the Udot case. (Note:
a copy of the Udot case
was provided to Congress during the first [closed door] meeting with them on
January 21st).
President Mori asked for an agreement to be reached
between Congress and the Executive on improving the appropriation and
implementation process.
Chairman Simina asked for a legal opinion from the FSM
DOJ asking “Can this agreement between us force Congress to act in accordance
with the agreement?” Chairman Simina
then rephrased the question as “Can a broad understanding between Congress
(those present at this meeting) and the President create a requirement on
Congress to hold public hearings and produce Committee Reports on all
appropriations?”
President Mori responded, “No,” further stating that
the Executive could not “force” anything on Congress. There should be a voluntary agreement between
us to do the right thing. Congress
should have meetings with constituents, hold public hearings, and produce
Committee Reports” that would assist the Executive in the implementation
process through the PCD with attachments.
And, it would provide equal treatment whether it was for the Executive’s
operational budget or Congress’ public projects (all involving public funds).
Chairman Simina stated that public hearings are not
always necessary because they do speak to constituents, but admitted that guidelines
would go a long way. Chairman George
stated that from this point forward, he would hold public hearings but wasn’t
sure if they would translate into Committee Reports. Chairman George also stated that the location
of the public hearings might be Kosrae as opposed to Pohnpei. President Mori acknowledged Chairman George’s
willingness to hold public hearings.
When asked again about the implementation of the $4.9
million, President Mori said to be fair, he would move forward with
implementation this time, but would hold on implementation of subsequent public
projects in the future if they failed to have enough specificity, failed to
state the purpose, etc., in order for the public projects to be implemented
correctly by the Executive, or if the Udot
case was violated.
President Mori also stated that the violations of the Udot case where Congress is
hiring personnel out of its budget, but placing them under a contract signed by
TC&I to implement projects, must immediately stop.
[As of print time, Congress has not come forward on what they are ready to offer in response to the President's call for improvement in legislating and implementing public project.]