Pangelinan Urges AG to Request Reduction in Federal Court Ordered DMHSA Payments


Guam – Senator Ben Pangelinan  has written to Attorney General Lenny Rapadas urging him to formally petition Guam’s Federal Court for a reduction in the mandated payments to satisfy the permanent injunction against the Department of Mental Health.


Pangelinan cites a cost analysis report from the Office of Finance and Budget (OFB) on the Federal Management Team’s (FMT) Plan of Action (POA) which recommends a $3.5 million dollar reduction in the court ordered payment schedule this year because the funds have not been spent.

Read Senator Pangelinan’s Letter to Attorney General Lenny Rapadas

In a release, Pangelinan argues: “The Amended Permanent Injunction (API) is an unbudgeted expense for the government of Guam. Every dollar spent for the API siphons resources from government operations, which affects our ability to pay tax refunds and the budgeted Hay Study salary increases. I urge the executive branch to evaluate and continue to monitor the POA and ensure that any funds requested are reasonable,”


Description                                                           Cost

Lapsed Personnel Costs (Oct. 2010 – Mar 2011)    $1,283,239
Cancellation of Hay Study Costs                             $   573,379
Planned Unnecessary Consultant Costs                   $1,200,000
ARRA Funded Main Facility Repairs                       $   450,000
Other Miscellaneous Costs                                      $     72,000
Total                                                                      $3,578,618

Pangelinan has already made the same request to visiting District Court Judge Consuelo Marshall in a letter he wrote to her earlier this year.

Now he is asking Attorney General Rapadas to file a motion for a modification of the required payments with the court.

“As a government, we cannot afford to continue to give a blank check for court ordered mandates,” states Pangelinan. “We must maintain a healthy level of professional skepticism and question proposals and plans presented to us and the Attorney General as the Chief Legal Officer of the Government must represent our interest with the Court.”