Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Financial Administration topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Mayor’s Council moves to tighten invoice timelines; proposes accountability for late submissions

3656489 · June 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council leadership proposed updating Mayor’s Council standard operating procedures to require prompt invoice submission from village offices and proposed a new accountability mechanism (proposed 3‑day village / 3‑day central timeline) that could make the approving mayor personally responsible for invoices not submitted within the specified time.

Council leadership asked mayors to review proposed revisions to the Mayor’s Council of Guam bylaws and standard operating procedures (SOP), including new time frames for submitting vendor invoices and a proposed consequence for invoices that are not submitted in time.

The chair proposed a timeline intended to increase accountability: the mayoral office would have a set number of days to submit invoices to the Mayor’s Council central office and the central office would have a set number of days to transmit the invoice to the Department of Administration (DOA). The chair initially proposed 7/7 but later suggested a compromise of 3 days for the village to send invoices to central office and 3 days for the central office to forward to DOA.

Council staff explained DOA has its own processing timelines and that invoices may still take additional time to be paid after DOA receives them, but argued that timely submission from village offices reduces vendor payment delays. The chair also proposed that if the invoice is not submitted within the specified period the approving mayor would assume personal responsibility for payment — a disciplinary/accountability mechanism being considered to reduce lost receipts and late fiscal‑year claims.

Council members asked for review and edits and the chair asked mayors to return comments before the next meeting so the council can adopt the revised SOP then. No formal adoption vote was recorded at the meeting; the revisions were presented for review.