This is in response to the November 14, 2001 request of the CNMI Chief Justice, Miguel S. Demapan, that we inquire into the allegations of Mr. David C. Andersen regarding reprogramming actions related to the Law Revision Commission (LRC). Consideration of this matter required review of records from numerous offices and agencies and consultation with their employees on a number of issues. Such agencies, offices and employees included the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Finance, the office of the Director of the Supreme Court, and the Law Revision Commission.

Mr. Andersen presented a number of questions to the Office of the Public Auditor. Mr. Andersen's questions encompass the issues raised in the Chief Justice's letter of November 14, 2001. As such, we are providing the answers to the questions he presented to OPA. Please note that this compilation of information was not conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and should not be considered an audit report.

Some of the questions presented in Mr. Andersen's letter are not clearly addressed by the available law on the matter. The responses to the questions below are OPA's interpretation of the laws that appear to be applicable to the issues involved.

1. Did the reprogramming of $48,000 in LRC personnel funds on September 5, 2001 to the Supreme Court to cover an over-expenditure of Supreme Court personnel funds violate 1 CMC § 7402? Specifically, did this reprogramming violate the prohibition against altering the total amount appropriated to the "department, office, agency, or instrumentality" listed in 1 CMC § 7402(c)(1) and if so, was the necessary additional reprogramming authority granted to the Chief Justice by the legislature to escape the 1 CMC § 7402(c)(1) restriction?
2. Could the Supreme Court first expend the funds, and then reprogram the money afterwards? In addition, did the reprogramming violate 1 CMC § 7604(c)(4) by evading the mandatory decrease in Supreme Court quarterly allotments under the government-wide austerity measures and 1 CMC § 7402(a)(1) by spending the funds other than for the items specified in the appropriation?
3. Why did the Supreme Court need to spend so much on personnel, how was the rest of the shortfall covered, and did the Supreme Court stay within its FTE limits?
4. Can the funds in the revolving fund established under 1 CMC § 3809(c) be used for Supreme Court expenses?
5. Can the Chief Justice change the signature lines on the Bank of Guam account without proper approval from the LRC?

View/download copy of full report