True Transparency, Telo Taitague, and a Toxic Start for the Republicans


Guam Republicans can cement their popularity with voters and residents by making one simple, but game-changing tweak to the incoming Standing Rules of the legislature: reverse the 74-year-old tradition of keeping legislative party caucuses secret.

The Open Government Act and the Sunshine Reform Act of 1999, commonly called the Freedom of Information Act, requires every official deliberative body – including the legislature at large – of the government to conduct its business out in the open, and to disclose public documents upon demand. The legislature approved a list of very few exceptions to these statutes meant to be interpreted liberally and to err on the side of transparency. Almost all of these exceptions are reasonable. Crime investigation techniques, police reports, records sealed by courts, etc.

The one exception that makes zero sense for all the most obvious of reasons is the senatorial party caucus. These are meetings of senators within their own parties. These caucuses – especially the caucus of whichever party has a legislative majority – are where the decisions are actually made. This is where the true and unvarnished deliberation about public policy actually happens. Next to criminal trials, if there is any proceeding in government where the public must demand a measure of transparency, it is the party caucus.

Every other deliberative bodies of the government must follow the OGA’s mandates for transparency, including the publication of meeting dates and agendas by certain time periods, the recording of meetings to include executive sessions, and accessibility accommodations. The FOIA requires public agencies to disclose public records on demand, and to provide copies upon request within timeframes. Senators for the past 74 years have failed to include themselves in this mandate of transparency when it comes to their deliberations in party caucus.

The Republicans ran on a platform that includes the promise of transparency. They can make this real by inserting language into the incoming Standing Rules that will hold both parties accountable for what is discussed in caucus.

It would be unreasonable for senators to compel themselves to follow every command of the OGA. During legislative session, for example, it would be untenable for a caucus to publish a five-day notice of a meeting complete with an agenda, then wait those five days to discuss matters. It would also be unreasonable to dilute the caucus process with a command to allow public presence and participation in these meetings. But what would work, and what the new Republican majority should mandate in the incoming Standing Rules, is a rule requiring senators to record the proceedings of all their caucuses, and to upload those proceedings to the legislature’s website.

Doing this does not stop senators from speaking their minds. They can speak their minds all they want, but what they say and the deals they cut in these meetings MUST BE available for the public to view.

It has only been 14 days since Frank Blas, Jr., Tony Ada, Chris Duenas, Jesse Lujan, Telo Taitague, Shelly Calvo, Vince Borja, Sabrina Salas Matanane, and Shawn Gumataotao won election as the incoming Republican majority. And while they should be commended for their quick decisions on the incoming leadership, source information abounds that Ms. Taitague unsurprisingly already is causing trouble within the caucus. Word is, she is unhappy with her fellow Republicans’ leadership decisions and she has been feeding caucus information to three Democrat senators.

Telo Taitague (Photo by David Castro, Guam Daily Post; published with permission from The Post)

Telo Taitague was just given (barely) the honor of serving another term as a senator by the people of Guam. Is this what we should expect from her leadership? Is this how she says ‘thank you for giving me a job for another two years?’ By backstabbing, playing games and wasting our time?

The secret nature of the caucus tradition helps to fuel this toxicity in the legislature, and threatens to undermine civility, sincerity in service, and collegiality at a time when voters demand results. Look at every impasse in every major issue this current legislature failed to move forward. They couldn’t even decide on a new hospital location because of toxic political games overshadowing the real work.

And the only reason the public is in the dark about what is really going on, is because all that toxicity is hidden behind the closed doors of the senatorial party caucus.

The Republicans can change this. They should rule the right of the public to inspect both parties’ caucuses. It is a precedent that will grant us, the people, a greater say in our government, and fresh eyes against corruption.


3 Comments

  • I disagree. Confidentiality in a caucus is required for discussion to be direct and frank. Agreements may be hammered out, but decisions are tentative until voting, which is done in public. Executive Branch administrators, staff and board decisionmakers are executing the laws as written, with power as delegated by the legislature, not making the laws. Accountability of the Senators is purely political, every two years.

    As for accountability for speech and debate, it would be instructive to remind everyone that the Legislature, its Committees, elected senators and staff are covered by the Constitutional “speech and debate” clause as specifically inserted to the Organic Act as 48 USC 1423c(b). Besides, the caucus of senators and senators-elect is not even a gathering of government officials. The senators- elect have not been sworn in. And, anything they agree to today could be overturned on Day 1 like in the current 37th GL.

    If the Open Government Law applied to Senators, they couldn’t even talk to each other about the people’s business without prior notice.

    So, what was your point, again?

    Oh, that for a caucus member to violate the confidentiality of their discussions is in the public interest? Actually, it shows poor judgement, since the member would have been excluded if he/she did not agree to or intend to keep the discussion confidential until they all agreed, and he/she has violated their trust, which doesn’t bode well for his/her fruitful participation over the coming two years.

  • Avid reader

      11/21/2024 at 5:49 AM

    Ugh!!!! One down….one to go!!!! You people reap what you sow!! You kept her in for whatever reason….well in two years boot her out too!!!! Just go home already!!! Dam bro!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement