KUAM.com: The McNinchi Code - Addressing the riddles of Guam elections

My thoughts on the UOG oversight hearing
I requested a copy of the correspondence from the Vartain Law Group to Senator Frank Ishizaki regarding the recent UOG oversight hearing. It's a rather intriguing issue...check out the link below and let's discuss. Read the Vartain Law Group letter to Sen. Ishizaki here
Thursday, December 20, 2007, at 10:46 PM (7 comments)	Posted by Ron McNinch
Post-mortem: thoughts on UOG oversight hearing
Today Senator Frank Ishizaki held a legislative oversight hearing on UOG, along with Senator Won Pat, Senator Pangelinan, Senator Palacios, and Senator Blas. Two items addressed today were the off-island legal contract and the student financial aid concern. Here are a few background items: 1) UOG was upset over certain Freedom of Information Act requests that were made, particularly Dr. Allen's two employment contracts and Student Financial Aid data. 2) Instead of having one of the many on-island legal advisers (including a full time legal counsel and a contracted on-island law firm) write a response to these requests, the university asked an off-island attorney, Michael Vartain to write a response. By most accounts, this was improper, since Vartain not licensed to practice law on Guam and he had been retained by the University to address EEO advisement matters. The reason given for Mr. Vartain writing the response was that UOG legal counsel was off-island. Senator Blas pointed out that Mr. Vartain was off-island too, so it seemed logical that the UOG legal counsel could have written the letter. By most accounts, the tone of this response letter was not appropriate. 3) When a number of documents were made available as part of the FOIA request, Senator Ishizaki's staffer sent to retrieve them was not allowed a copy of them. He had to sit and hand copy them, sitting in a chair without the aid of a desk to write on. It took him nearly three hours to hand transcribe the lengthy documents. This was not disclosed at the hearing. 4) This behavior on the part of the university was wrong. Any citizen should be provided reasonable access to government information. Also, the university erred in its inappropriate use of off-island advice. There is a specific way to use this type of advice and it seemingly was not taken. 5) Instead of simply admitting that errors were made and agreeing to remedy them, the university spent nearly three hours trying to defend these actions. Also, the university should have simply apologized for these errors. Since they didn't, I will. As a faculty member, on behalf of the university, I apologize for the university acting silly. 6) This leads to a larger question: Why does UOG need an off-island EEO adviser? The answer is pretty simple. In 1995, the Legislature passed PL 23-26, which allowed UOG and GCC to handle "academic personnel" matters outside of the Guam Civil Service Commission's oversight. Due to a number of reasons, UOG has consistently refused to develop a sound set of rules, processes and procedures to address academic personnel matters. The statistics are very clear. In looking at tenure rates (i.e. security of employment) alone since the year 2000, there is a very clear disparity in tenure rates for minority faculty members. Instead of the university addressing the issue, they have sandbagged it with legal silliness. UOG is banking on the fact that the 180-day rule (for EEO assistance) has passed on these cases. The government, in good faith, could make a choice to review and remedy these cases. By government, I would include the legislature, other appropriate entities and the regents themselves. 7) At the very core of this problem is the secret committee system used to tenure faculty at UOG. Since the regents are mushroomed (ie fed on crap and kept in the dark) away from these secret shenanigans, they assume that this is a sound peer review process. It isn't. 8) The other point is that the regents need an external inspector general to better advise and assist them on administrative excesses. For example the procurement issue today could have been readily handled by such a person. PS: The key question is: who has the courage to look at item (6) above?
Friday, December 14, 2007, at 4:04 AM (12 comments)	Posted by Ron McNinch
Expect Prop "A" to be tight race
After a court battle, the gaming proposition is back on the ballot. In this form, it is called Prop A. We have a lot of research on this initiative. In general, the numbers are fairly consistent so far with the normal longitudinal view. About 1/3 of the public supports gaming. About 1/3 of the public opposes gaming. About 1/3 of the public is truly in the middle. The middle splits out into at least three groups, those who lean toward gaming, those who lean away and those who don't care. Thus, the normal split is about 44-44-12. In a normal process, the game will be to garner 6 (+1 vote) out of the 12 points. In general, the common view is that the gaming proponents hope that a lower turnout will occur in a special election thereby giving them a greater probability of success. If they had done a simple level of basic research, they might have had a different view. The danger of special elections on a polarized question is the opposite effect. The problem with the gaming initiative is the slander/libel litigation with the assorted unnamed John Does. It is ironic that the gaming proponents use the courts to get on the ballot while at the same time court actions are used to gag the opposition.
Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 11:10 PM (3 comments)	Posted by Ron McNinch
Senatorial race is anybody's game
Following the untimely passing of former Speaker Tony Unpingco earlier this year, we will be holding a special election on January 5th to fill the open seat. The three candidates on the ballot are: Tom Ada B.J. Cruz Telo Taitague In a poll we conducted about two weeks ago, this is a very close race between the three candidates. On the adjusted scale, the following is the breakdown: Telo: ~30% Tom: ~32% BJ: ~33% Undecided: ~5% This is an adjusted scale because we asked the questions using a variety of formats. (Open ended, closed with assorted options, etc...) If the election were just between two candidates, former Chief Justice BJ Cruz has a stronger edge. Due to the dynamics of a three way race, this will be a very close election. One of the questions I am frequently asked is, if a democrat is elected, will it affect the current leadership structure of the legislature. The answer is a definite "MAYBE". It depends on a number of factors.
Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 11:09 PM (4 comments)	Posted by Ron McNinch
At what cost votes?
Here's a breakdown of how much each candidate spent during the election. Senatorial Candidates (top 15) ============================================= (2) Ray Tenorio (R) $169,849 $6.52 per vote (12) Frank Blas Jr. (R) $85,701 $4.71 per vote (15) Jesse Lujan (R) $54,340 $3.30 per vote (8) Ben Pangelinan (D) $59,245 $2.96 per vote (10) David Shimizu (D) $51,341 $2.72 per vote (4) James Espaldon (R) $62,078 $2.61 per vote (13) Frank Ishizaki (R) $43,371 $2.39 per vote (11) Tina Muna-Barnes (D) $42,525 $2.32 per vote (1) Eddie Calvo (R) $57,732 $2.18 per vote (6) Mark Forbes (R) $43,291 $2.01 (9) Tony Unpingco (R) $34,945 $1.76 per vote (5) Rory Respicio (D) $33,850 $1.56 per vote (7) Adolpho Palacios (D) $30,962 $1.46 per vote (14) Judith Guthertz (D) $13,300 $0.75 per vote (3) Judith Won Pat (D) $3,785 $0.15 per vote [ $3.48 average cost per vote overall ] AG Candidates ============================================= Alicia Limtiaco $100,324 $ 4.64 per vote Vernon Perez $92,626 $ 6.41 per vote Gubernatorial Candidates ============================================= Camacho/Cruz $1,192,608 $60.97 per vote Underwood/Aguon $1,129,311 $60.40 per vote Thoughts???
Thursday, November 30, 2006, at 6:33 AM (2 comments)	Posted by Ron McNinch
On votes - to count or not to count?
States vary in the way they count votes. While we haven't finished the evaluation of each ste, no state to date counts overvotes. The closest state so far is Georgia which counts the named candidate in a single office race over a write in overmarked ballot. In the table below, the percentages for the state races are included.Six states had winners below 50%. (Alaska, Illinois, Maine, Minesota, Nevada and Texas.) Depending on actual numbers, five additional states may have had below 50%. For example, depending on the actual numbers ballots marked. Other than handling press releases from the various camps and regurgitating the court rulings, there has not been much a discussion of several of the important factors in this case. Here are some examples: * What is a vote? Are improperly marked ballots votes? Are blank ballots votes? Are blank write in "votes" votes? * What does the Organic Act mean by a "single vote" for governor? Can two marks constitute a single vote? * What does casting a vote mean? * If Guam cannot make a local law to govern what "votes" are, how can we make local laws to govern other aspects of an election? * In a two way race, should 500 improprly * What does the real data on these 1100 other votes say? Are write ins really write ins? What if they are blank? What doe these ballots say? What if a named write in was actualy a candidate? Did it count? * There are just 8 categories of these votes: Class One: Write in Votes 1) Write in votes for other candidates 2) Write in votes for named candidates (which should count) 3) Write in votes that are blank (should these count? How are these different from undervotes?) Class Two: Ballots Marked with two or more marks 4) Camacho -- Underwood -- Write in (should these count?) 5) Camacho -- Underwood (should these count?) 6) Camacho- write in (should these count? What if Camacho is the write in?) 7) Underwood-write in (should these count? What if Underwood is the write in?) 8) Other types not determined here) These votes should be counted and determined before the Supreme Court hearings.
Sunday, November 19, 2006, at 3:20 AM (26 comments)	Posted by Ron McNinch
Why did Camacho/Cruz win in the general election?
Here are my thoughts on why Camacho/Cruz got more votes in the general election. What do you think? 1) Incumbency The power of incumbency is very strong. Benefits of this factor include patronage, earned media, credit for progress in the previous term, and the default effects of stability. All of these incumbent factors formed an irresistible brew that translated into votes. The Underwood had no real advantages in this area. 2) Economic Potentials Developed 2002-2006 from Military News The great economic boon created by the military shift from Okinawa dominated the business and public speculation markets in the year preceding the election. The Camacho/Cruz team was viewed as extremely patriotic with a red, white and blue motif and pro-military presence. Governor Camacho was credited with helping with this shift. The Underwood/Aguon team was not viewed as having the same positive attitude toward the military. Thus, this was also an important factor. 3) Excellent Campaign Organization In part due to the power of the incumbency, the Camacho camp had a superior campaign structure and organization. There was a long term planning effort that supported the timeline and activity schemes leading to the final three month election cycle. 4) Genuine Incorporation of Gutierrez/Moylan Following the primary, the Camacho team made a genuine effort to work with the Gutierrez and Moylan camps. Within two weeks following the primary, serious fractures began to emerge between the Underwood camp and the former Gutierrez supporters. Moylan remained a loyal republican following the primary and this helped Camacho. 5) Positive Themes, including vision The Camacho camp used a very positive theme format and expressed vision. In the Underwood camp, there was a "Yes! " and "Change! " theme. The problem with these themes were the appropriation by the Yes! Theme by Prop B group and the fact that "change" is not always viewed as a positive thing. Change is the unknown, further change is not always wanted by voters who are relatively satisfied. 6) Underwood did not respond adequately to the Filipino questions A series of ads describing various statements allegedly made by Mr. Underwood in the past related to views on Filipinos. Instead of addressing the issue directly, and either admitting these statements were made and apologizing or denying these statements were made, they languished and eroded Filipino support for Underwood in key areas. 7) The effects of the primary litigation The specter of a second primary effectively reset camps to their pre-primary levels. Once encamped, the Gutierrez and Moylan supporters began comparing notes on how they were treated in the Underwood and Camacho camps. The bottom line was that Camacho camp was viewed as more hospitable and nicer. After the general election proceeded, the Camacho team won the popularity contest with these groups. 8) Media Polls "becoming the story" The media polls published by SPB and PDN were not accurate in the primary election. In the UOG poll, this was a close race. Following the purported 20 point Underwood lead, voters debated the polls vigorously over the weekend and this debate favored Camacho. 9) The Use of Consultants The Camacho camp used consultants discreetly and in tandem with local experts, the Underwood camp used a consultant from Washington DC who had a limited understanding of the context of Guam politics. 10) Feelgood Emotions Trump Logic, Wit and Whining Camacho themes were mostly directed toward positive emotional messages. UA themes simply did not have an emotional connection to voters.
Saturday, November 11, 2006, at 4:44 AM (69 comments)	Posted by Ron McNinch
Whatta night...
To say the balloting that took place after the General Election was out of control would be a gross understatement. It was a night at KUAM filled with twists and turns, ending in Guam not really having any idea at all who the governor would be. What are your thoughts?
Thursday, November 09, 2006, at 4:41 AM (8 comments)	Posted by Ron McNinch