By John A. Ananich II
As citizens of Guam, we entrust our elected senators—whether seasoned incumbents or newly elected officials—with the significant responsibility of enacting legislation that genuinely reflects the will of the people, safeguards our collective interests, and fosters the socio-economic development of our island. Yet, it is disheartening to observe that some of these senators, regardless of their tenure, succumb to patterns of legislative inertia and inefficacy. This persistent failure not only stifles the legislative process but also represents a betrayal of the fiduciary trust that their public office demands.
Given this reality, we must ask ourselves: Why do we, the electorate, continue to tolerate such consistent underperformance? Should we not have the means to hold all public servants—veterans and newcomers alike—accountable for their actions or inactions? The concept of accountability must transcend mere rhetoric; it should manifest as a real mechanism available to the electorate—perhaps even encompassing the possibility of civil action against those who fail to fulfill their duties, regardless of their tenure in office.
Moreover, this situation is exacerbated by the troubling fact that approximately 40 percent of eligible voters consistently abstain from participating in our elections. This voter disengagement, whether due to apathy, disillusionment, or a sense of powerlessness, inadvertently enables the status quo, allowing underperforming legislators to maintain their positions with little consequence. The absence of voter participation is not merely a civic lapse; it plays a direct role in perpetuating the legislative stagnation that impedes our island’s progress.
So, the question before us is this: Should the electorate have the power to initiate civil action when any senator—whether seasoned or newly elected—fails to uphold their legislative responsibilities? Would such a measure serve as a deterrent to complacency and reinforce the principle that public office is a public trust, not a permanent entitlement?
In most professional environments, consistent failure to meet job expectations results in termination. Should not our public officials, both new and experienced, be held to similar standards of accountability? These are not merely ceremonial roles; they are critical positions of influence whose actions—or inactions—affect the lives of their constituents. When they fall short, should we not consider whether legal recourse could be an appropriate and effective tool for ensuring accountability?
It is important to acknowledge potential criticisms of the idea of holding senators accountable through potential civil action. Some may argue that such measures could be seen as overly punitive or extreme, particularly when considering the complexities and challenges inherent in the legislative process. It is also crucial to recognize that accountability must be balanced with fairness, ensuring that public servants are not unduly penalized for decisions made in good faith, even if those decisions do not yield the desired outcomes.
However, the proposal for civil action is not intended to punish public officials for political disagreements or isolated missteps. Rather, it seeks to address consistent patterns of failure that betray the trust of the electorate and hinder the progress of our island. The objective is not retribution but the preservation of the principles of accountability and responsibility that are essential to any effective democratic system.
In considering this, it is also worth noting that the very essence of democracy is predicated on the notion that elected officials serve at the pleasure of the people. When senators—whether new or long-serving—fail to meet their obligations, it is reasonable to question whether the current mechanisms for accountability are sufficient. Civil action, in this context, could be viewed as a logical extension of the electorate’s right to ensure that those who hold public office do so with the utmost diligence and integrity.
In conclusion, the idea of exploring civil action as a potential recourse for legislative failure should not be dismissed outright. Rather, it should be seen as part of a broader discussion on how we can strengthen our democratic institutions and ensure that the governance of Guam truly reflects the best interests of its people. This conversation is not about punishment but about reinforcing the standards of excellence and accountability that our community deserves.
And to those who currently serve in our legislature, if this rattles your feathers, then you might want to ask yourself: Does the shoe fit? After all, a truly dedicated public servant should have nothing to fear from the prospect of accountability.
If you find yourself unsettled by this call for higher standards, it may be worth reflecting on your own contributions to the legislative process. Are you serving with the commitment and integrity that the people of Guam deserve, or does this conversation strike a little too close to home?
_____
John Ananich is a resident of Dededo
