Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Ethics And Personnel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorneys and senators clash over bill language that would change merit protections in AGoffice
Summary
Proposed changes to hiring and classification rules for the Attorney Generaloffice prompted a formal letter from local attorneys alleging potential violations of the Organic Act and produced extensive floor debate over whether the provisions should be removed or publicly vetted.
A letter circulated from a cross-section of local attorneys accusing the legislature of inserting provisions that "violate the Organic Act" and strip civil service protections from the Attorney Generaloffice animated one of the night's most heated exchanges. Senator Parkinson read the legal community letter into the record and argued sections 35 and 41 should be removed until they receive public hearings.
Opponents of the letter said the provisions are intended to give an elected attorney general sufficient hiring authority to handle increased workloads; supporters of removal warned of litigation risk and cited Ninth Circuit precedent requiring assistant attorneys general to be in the classified service. "These provisions seek to strip public servants of civil service protection in direct violation of the Organic Act of Guam," Parkinson read.
Senators repeatedly moved to reconsider, overrule the chair and vote on deletions or revisions; votes produced mixed outcomes. Some amendments and technical edits were adopted while other proposals failed. Senator Parkinson and others urged daylighted public hearings on changes affecting the executive branchemployment rules; proponents said the elected AG must have flexibility to hire staff given the workload.
