A bill to reinstate mandated board approval for the Guam Visitors Bureau’s expenses for trips off-island put under the microscope today. The agency's board chairman says it’s not to micromanage management, while management warns the proposal could result in “significant economic implications" for the island.

Senators scrutinized a proposal to reinstate GVB board approval for travel related expenses on Wednesday. Senator Telo Taitague stated, "Again, have you seen any abuse at GVB right now when it comes to travel? I don’t think so." the discussion is over tourism oversight chair Senator Jesse Lujan’s Bill 279, which would require all official travel by the Bureau to be reviewed and approved by the board, before any public funds are spent.

The scrutiny over high cost trips comes as over $50,000 spent on two trips last October was called into question by board members, according to Senator Lujan. But when asked this question, repeatedly, GVB board chairman George Chiu was unable to give a clear answer.

Taitague asked, "Have you seen any misspending of GVB travel since you’ve been there? Yes or no?", to which Chiu replied, "We don’t get that kind of detailed information as a board."

"I don’t get it because I’ve asked you if they’re abusing the situation. I’ve asked if you guys asked to see itemized travel. You guys don’t even want to see that. So what is the issue? Sounds to me like it just wants power," said Senator Taitague.

Chiu argues reinstating authority to the board is “logical,” not a “power trip”, saying, "The board has no desire to micromanage the management and staff of GVB on travel related issues." He added, "The board members do not get paid. They are volunteering their time. All they want to do is try to get tourism back on track so that our economy can benefit. And the local people in the tourism business can continue to find a way to survive."

Meanwhile, GVB's new vice president, Frank Arriola, reading testimony from president and CEO Regine Biscoe Lee, says board members have not formally debated on the proposal in a public meeting. Although he says GVB does not have a position on the bill, their primary concern is that the bureau would be unable to respond to time sensitive opportunities quickly.

"For example, if GVB were to receive notice today that representatives from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Philippine government wished to meet in Manila on Thursday to discuss a pilot expansion of the Philippine visa waiver program for Guam, the Bureau would likely be unable to accommodate that request under the proposed structure," Arriola said.

GVB warns missed opportunities like this could result in “significant economic implications for Guam.”