Summary:
This report outlines the prolonged and obstructed efforts to enforce a contract signed in 2010 between a private party and the American Samoa Telecommunications Authority (ASTCA), revealing a pattern of administrative non-cooperation, procedural irregularities, and judicial opacity that raises serious concerns about access to justice in American Samoa. The case centers on ASTCA’s failure to provide directory listings necessary to produce telephone directories under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and the subsequent failure of the local judiciary to enforce that MOU or provide a fair adjudicatory process.

Background and Contract Formation

In 2010, following a request from ASTCA’s Marketing Director, the complainant agreed to produce future telephone directories for the agency, contingent upon ASTCA providing timely and complete directory listings. ASTCA delegated the task of providing these listings to J.D. Hall, a new employee with familial ties to Roy Hall, a long-standing associate of ASTCA. Hall initially committed to fulfilling these obligations.

Given that prior versions of the contract had been left unupdated for nearly a decade, the complainant requested a new agreement be drafted to comply with procurement law. ASTCA’s legal counsel, Gwen Langkilde, agreed in June 2010 to draft a new contract. However, no draft was received from her until September, when she sent an internal email proposing modifications to the outdated 2001 agreement—without providing a copy to the complainant.

The complainant independently drafted a contract framework to initiate negotiations, but discussions were delayed by ASTCA officials, particularly Langkilde, who objected to critical provisions such as (1) the request for a listing count (which she mischaracterized as a demand for listing “accuracy”) and (2) a proposal that every subscriber receive a copy of the directory.

Operational Failures and Breach

Between 2010 and 2013, the complainant repeatedly sought directory data from Hall, who was unable or unwilling to provide accurate and complete files in the required format. The complainant provided extensive guidance and formatting examples. Despite this, Hall failed to deliver viable data for multiple years. During this period, it emerged that Hall was posting ASTCA listings on a personal website and soliciting advertising revenue independently, an apparent conflict of interest and misuse of agency resources.

Repeated appeals for assistance to Gwen Langkilde and ASTCA executive Alex Sene were ignored. A turning point came in 2013, when ASTCA’s new CEO, Bill Emmsley, assigned Margaret Willis—an experienced listings compiler—to assist Hall. Although Willis completed substantial work within days, Hall withheld her contributions from the complainant, further obstructing progress.

After four years of systemic failure and inaction by ASTCA, the complainant filed a breach-of-contract suit, supported by extensive documentation. The contract—signed by both parties and operational since 2010—was challenged by ASTCA on grounds of enforceability, despite no prior dispute over its legal standing.

Judicial Process and Barriers to Appeal

The legal case, which lasted over eight years, culminated in a dismissal. The trial judge, Chief Justice Michael Kruse, ruled that the MOU was unenforceable. This decision was issued despite its clear terms, the signatures of authorized parties, and no previous claims of invalidity. The court also accepted Langkilde’s misrepresentation of the complainant’s request for a listing count and rejected the claim that ASTCA had failed to provide post-paid cell phone listings—a key breach point.

The complainant encountered multiple irregularities during the proceedings:

• Deposition Substitution for Trial Testimony: Langkilde was not cross-examined in court due to her current judicial appointment. Instead, Judge Kruse ordered a deposition, limiting transparency and denying the complainant an opportunity to challenge her claims in open court.
• Abbreviated Trial Schedule: On the second day of trial, just before the complainant’s testimony, Judge Kruse unexpectedly stated there would be no time to continue, introducing uncertainty about the court’s commitment to a full trial of the case.
• Documentation Issues: Requests for trial transcripts yielded only hard copies with faint print, making digital archiving or analysis difficult. These limitations materially impaired preparation for appeal.
• Court Transparency Concerns: The American Samoa appeals process is opaque. Appellate rules are hosted only on an unofficial, outdated website, and even court staff appeared unaware of the current appellate procedures. The composition of the appellate bench was unclear, with conflicting statements from court personnel.

Conclusions and Implications

The handling of this contract dispute highlights systemic problems within American Samoa’s administrative and judicial apparatus:

1. Lack of Contract Enforcement Mechanisms: Despite a signed, operational agreement, ASTCA’s repeated non-performance faced no internal correction or legal penalty.
2. Judicial Discretion and Procedural Inconsistency: The abrupt curtailment of the trial and substitution of deposition for testimony undermined procedural fairness and the complainant’s ability to challenge factual distortions.
3. Opacity in the Appellate Process: The appeals system lacks public accessibility and formal guidance, leaving litigants to navigate conflicting instructions and limited documentation support.
4. Administrative Conflict of Interest: Hall’s dual role—handling directory data while profiting privately from its use—was never addressed by ASTCA management, suggesting inadequate internal oversight and accountability.

Recommendations

• External Review: This case may warrant external audit or review by an independent territorial or federal oversight body, given the pattern of procedural failings.
• Clarification of Judicial Protocols: The judiciary in American Samoa should be required to publish clear and updated appellate procedures on an official website, with staff properly trained to communicate these rules.
• Legislative Reform: The case underlines the need for statutory protections ensuring contract enforceability and transparency in procurement by public entities.
• Ethical Guidelines for Public Employees: ASTCA should adopt stricter conflict-of-interest policies and ensure enforcement against misuse of agency resources for private gain.