Reshaping the

Reform

Reshaping the legislature

Guam attempts to provide a leaner bureaucracy, but how serious is the intention ?

By David North

When a palace coup of sorts hit the 23rd Guam Legislature on its first official day of business on January 4, the losing faction expressed shock and dismay. Embittered senators called the body “a parliament of whores” and an “incestuous pool of self interest’’.Vengeance was vowed.

But most residents and veteran observers of the island’s flamboyant legislative branch were not surprised. The shake-up, though more bitter than most recent squabbles, was just one more engrossing chapter in the 45-year history of one of the richest, most diverse, free-wheeling, and fascinating legislative bodies in the

Pacific. Though not especially powerful by

Pacific island standards, the venerable ter ritorial legislature of Guam is certainly exceptional.

Don Parkinson, a “stateside” attorney from Utah who came to Guam 20 years ago, is now the Speaker, thanks to the January 4 coup.

The legislature also is losing its venera bility. The average age of members is drop ping quickly. In the current body, two thirds of the senators are under 40. And that was a key factor in the January power struggle.

As Guam has prospered over the past two decades, primarily from a thriving tourism industry and, until recently, a rela tively stable US military presence the legislature also has waxed wealthy. Its annual budgets have grown from a modest $5 million to $lO million in the late 1950 s to $l5O million over the past few years.

Senators’ salaries jumped to $55,000 annually the highest of any in the Pacific and second highest of any of the 50 states of the United States. Staffing has sim ilarly ballooned and the 21-member body now employs more than 500 persons either through direct staffing or indirect contractual arrangements.

The influence of the body over the oper ations of the 12,000-strong government of

Guam has similarly increased. Through its committee structure, investigative authori ty, and legislative power especially bud get appropriation authority the legisla ture has held down utility, public health and education costs, boosted the salaries of local government workers and the pen sion benefits of government retirees, and heavily influenced education, health and welfare appointments and policies of the local executive branch.

The private sector has complained about this agenda, arguing that too much of the

‘We elected them to do a job, and now the people of Guam have to go and do their job for them. ’ \

island’s wealth was being used by public employees and government welfare pro grams rather on new roads, improved power systems and better schools.

Many of the problems with public edu cation and health care have been traced to political intervention and favoritism. As Guam slipped into a recession, public dis satisfaction mounted. Guam’s flat econo my, rising unemployment, inflation, gov ernment deficit of more than $lOO million and the public’s perception of continued deterioration in public utility, educational and health services left many voters frus trated and upset. The local government’s borrowing through bond issues to pay long overdue tax refunds (just before the primary) and to meet other operating expenses had further exacerbated the sit uation. As one irate voter said in referring to earlier failed attempts at legislative

reform, “We elected them to do a job, and now the people of Guam have to go and do their job for them.”

A major voters initiative aimed at reform ing the legislature was introduced in last year’s general election. The initiative called for reducing membership to 15, lowering legislators annual salaries to $40,000, cap ping the budget at 2.5 percent total rev enue and limiting consecutive legislative terms to three.

Several incumbent Guam legislators had unsuccessfully introduced legislative reform measures. More than 8000 voters eagerly signed the petitions. Mark Forbes, who launched the effort, was carried along on the wave and handily elected to office, placing him within the top 15 elect ed members.

But when it came time to submit the ini tiative petitions to the Guam Election Commission, Forbes had a change of heart, saying that as a member of the body, he had to give it a chance to reform itself.

A public outcry led to bills being intro duced in the legislature to achieve the reform and an unsuccessful legislative candidate’s pledge to reinvigorate the citi zens initiative. But for many voters, reform appears further off now that it did a year ago.

Many of the younger generation of Democratic Party senators who were elected last November also took up the battle, promising reform from within. The Democrats had won 13 of the seats to the Republicans 8 in the November, 1994 vote. Flushed with electoral victory, and led by Senator Tom Ada, the most popular vote getter among all the senators, the group was aided by party chairman Mike Phillips and won the caucus endorsement for Speaker. They began to build a power base around him. Important committee assignments were slated to go to Ada’s allies and the Republicans were warned that their staff budgets could be cut by as much as $lOO,OOO each as a “reform” and downsizing effort.

The “magnificient seven plus one” as they came to be known, had unwittingly pro vided the motivation that drove a group of disgruntled older Democratic senators (some of whom boasted five consecutive terms and said they also had a voter man date) and eight minority members into a coalition that on January 4 voted for the “statesider” Don Parkinson as Speaker of the 23rd Legislature. The winners quickly attempted to consolidate their victory by offering major committee assignments to some of the younger Democrats. Most accepted and the new coalition solidified its position, for now at least.

Left unanswered were the issues of reform and downsizing. The new legis lature has shown no sign of reducing its