THE Guam Attorney General will reportedly withdraw from the Rodriguez tax evasion case in objection to settlement proposals that would let the defendants off the hook for millions of dollars in tax delinquencies and penalties.

In a surprising and unusual move in a case litigated to near-finality by the AG, Gov. Calvo’s chief policy advisor, Arthur Clark, reportedly assumed control without prior consultation with the Attorney General, citing the governor’s role and authority as tax commissioner. In response, the Attorney General filed a motion to withdraw from representation of the people of Guam in the action, commenting that "Mr. Clark persists in a course of action that the Office of the Attorney General finds legally inadvisable and antithetical to the public interest.” Guam’s chief legal officer further comments that "the Office of the Attorney General finds the proposed settlement by Mr. Clark repugnant and fundamentally disagrees with the settlement proposal."

This is shaping up to be a perfect example of what former U.S. Attorney Fred Black once referred to as “overwhelming government corruption.” A seemingly straight-forward case with highlights that include failure to file tax refunds for several years and a total tax, penalty and interest obligation of some $2.4 million may be on the way to dismissal or some shallow settlement arrangement at the direction of Gov. Calvo.

Viewed as a stand-alone issue, this kind of political patronage is enough to turn the stomach. When viewed in light of the dire GovGuam financial situation – one that seems inexorably headed toward workforce layoffs and tax increases – it becomes even more disgusting and reprehensible. The $2.4 million could go a long way toward paying off legitimate, long-overdue tax refund claims, funding GDOE school buses and other needs, or perhaps allowing GMH to pay off part of several million dollars in overdue vendor billings.

In a K-57 radio telephone interview on Thursday, Sept. 27, Mr. Clark asserted that the Office of the Governor has nothing but the best interest of Guam taxpayers in mind. He emphasized several times that the Attorney General and the Governor’s Office share that sentiment. Why, then, did the AG state that Mr. Clark’s proposed settlement is “antithetical to the public interest?” It would seem Mr. Clark is being less than completely candid with us. He tap-danced around the legal definition of “repugnant,” but the term “antithetical” isn’t subject to misinterpretation. Such cavalier treatment of the facts in the matter implicates the governor and calls his motives into question.

Why would Gov. Calvo even consider such a move, if indeed he’s doing so? Is it because Mr. Rodriguez is politically connected through his son, Sen. Rodriguez, and therefore entitled to special treatment? Could there be some special relationship with attorney Fisher, who represents the Rodriguez couple? According to media reports, Fisher was the attorney for the Calvo-Tenorio gubernatorial campaign. Or are there other factors not yet in public view?

If what we are hearing is even partially true, it’s an insult to the public and an assault upon the most fundamental concepts of equal treatment under the law. Gov. Calvo promised us transparency in his administration. It’s now incumbent upon him to publicly disclose the nature of the proposed arrangement or settlement negotiations with the Rodriguezes and demonstrate how it is not “antithetical to the public interest.” He must do what is legally and morally right: pursue to the fullest extent of the law collection of not only that which is owed to the people by Mr. Rodriguez, but by all the others who blithely ignore their obligations and responsibilities to pay income, property and other taxes with seeming impunity.

We expect nothing less. We are watching.