CSC rendered decisions for fired Port staffers

by Mindy Aguon

Guam - The Civil Service Commission made decisions in two terminated Port Authority of Guam workers cases on Wednesday night, ruling in favor of the employee in one and in favor of management in another.

The CSC ruled that Port management violated the 60-day rule when it served notice of adverse action against Port personnel specialist Frances Arriola last year.  Arriola and five other Port workers were terminated on December 18 for their involvement in an alleged conspiracy to defraud the government and then cover it up. Arriola was accused of altering a travel itinerary and inputting the wrong per diem rate for a travel request and authorization as well as drafting and backdating a memo to put in a file.

Port legal counsel Mike Phillips, however, argued that the 60-day rule was not violated, saying, "So the question of whether the board knew on the 19th or the 25th, there's no meeting of any minutes that occurred on the 19th. The 19th the director and deputy were summoned to my office because the chair had discovered there was an attempt to expend $70,000 of taxpayer money."

Arriola's attorney, Daniel Somerfleck, took issue that no minutes or recordings had been taken of that meeting.  He said the violation was clear reading from his client's adverse action, noting, "'The reason it took HR from at least October 18 when the board found out about this illegal travel to November 19 was to have their stories straight,'" he said, reading management's statement in the adverse action. "So by their own admission by counsel in the adverse action, not a document additional, but by their own admission and findings of fact and conclusions of law they have admitted the board found out about this illegal travel on the 18th."

Commissioners were convinced that management knew or should have known on October 18 about the facts or events that were the basis for the adverse action. Edith Pangelinan said, "They [management] knew that something was wrong. They knew then since October 18. why wasn't anything done if they, in fact, can prove that there was a defrauding of the government by changing the travel authorization?"

All five commissioners voted in favor of Arriola who was overcome with emotions and embraced her former coworkers as she left the commission. It's unclear if she'll get her old job back as the port is reviewing the CSC's decision and once a written judgment is signed they can ask the commission to reconsider and further pursue the matter in the courts. The CSC didn't make the same ruling for former Port marketing administrator Bernadette Stern Meno even though her attorney, Curtis Van De Veld, raised similar arguments regarding the 60-day rule - saying all of the dates referenced in his client's adverse action are all well before October 18 of last year.

Van De Veld said, "Management is not defined as the board. It's not defined as the chairman of the board. As you quite clearly and accurately pointed out, management includes the general manager and the deputy general manager."

Attorney Phillips said even if the facts of the case have dates prior to October 18, there was no way the Port knew at those times that Meno was committing fraud on her claims. "The fraud occurs when you're trying to get the Government of Guam and the Port in our system to pay for it," he said. "There's not a single shred of evidence that there was a disclosure to management that what you see today, the miracle cure, was known to Mary Torres, Anisia Terlaje or anybody!"

Meno raised several other arguments about why the adverse action must be dismissed but commissioners weren't convinced.  CSC member John Smith noted, "Based on all the information we have, Mr. Terlaje was authorized by the board of directors to take that position and sign the document legally. The delivery of service, I have no question about that. The husband refused to accept it. I believe he knew ahead of time what it was and he refused to accept it was left there."

Because they determined that Meno did not meet her burden by a preponderance of the evidence, the commission will proceed with hearing the merits of her case.

Van De Veld tells KUAM News he is perplexed by the inconsistent rulings of the commission and says he will be proceeding to the superior court to file an action there as he believes the Port acted in violation of the Open Government Law when it met on December 5 and appointed Terlaje as the acting GM.   Additionally, he believes an October 19 meeting held at the Port's Legal Counsel's Office with Port management and some board members was also a violation of the law.

Van De Veld also decided against calling former Port general manager Mary Torres to testify in his client's case.  He said Torres would not have said anything different than a public statement she issued back in December and Van De Veld was concerned that the Port's legal counsel would not show "decorum" during the proceeding.  The commission will hold another motion to dismiss hearing for former Port program coordinator Josette Javelosa on May 23.