Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA — The Senate Government Operations Investigative Committee continued its inquiry into the American Samoa Telecommunications Authority (ASTCA) on Monday, focusing on expenditures related to the America250 (A250) celebrations and questions surrounding the employment contracts of former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Chuck Leota, who now serves as the authority's Chief Operations Officer (COO).

Appearing before the committee were ASTCA CEO Folasaitu Sorepa Thomas and COO Chuck Leota, who were called to provide testimony and clarify issues that have been the subject of previous hearings.

Before taking testimony, Committee Chairman Senator Togiola T.A. Tulafono outlined the matters senators hoped to address during the hearing.

Regarding the A250 celebrations, Togiola said lawmakers were seeking a detailed accounting of the funds spent by ASTCA in support of the event. He asked whether a final financial report had been prepared showing the total amount expended and providing a complete breakdown of all costs incurred.

The senator explained that it was the committee's understanding that the A250 celebration was co-sponsored by ASTCA and the Reid Group, with both parties reportedly agreeing to share the overall cost of the event.

However, Togiola noted that documents provided to the committee did not show any reimbursement or payment from the Reid Group for its alleged share of the expenses.

"Our understanding is that ASTCA and the Reid Group agreed to split the costs," Togiola said. "However, the report provided to this committee does not indicate that ASTCA received any payment from the Reid Group toward those expenses."

Lawmakers indicated they wanted to determine the total cost of the event, each party's financial obligations, and whether ASTCA ultimately absorbed expenses that should have been shared.

The committee then turned its attention to issues surrounding Leota's employment contracts with ASTCA and the controversial child support payment that was reportedly made using ASTCA funds, a matter that has generated significant public scrutiny.

Togiola requested copies of Leota's original employment agreement signed during the Lemanu-Talauega Administration, when he was appointed Chief Executive Officer, as well as the contract later executed under the current Pula-Pulu Administration for his position as Chief Operations Officer (CEO).

The senator said the committee continues to seek clarification regarding ASTCA's reported obligation to compensate Leota in the amount of approximately $135,000 following the termination of his original CEO contract.

"The committee wants clarification on the circumstances that, in your belief, have resulted in ASG being obligated to pay him the significant amount of $135,000 because of the alleged violation of the terms of the original contract," Togiola stated.

"We want a clear explanation of the terms of these contracts and what exactly were the terms that were allegedly violated, which has placed ASG in debt to Mr. Leota."

According to Togiola, previous testimony by CEO Folasaitu indicated that Leota's original contract was a three-year agreement that should have extended into the current administration.

However, senators were informed that the contract was terminated after the change in administration.

"It seems to us that this termination has led you to believe that ASG became obligated to compensate Mr. Leota," Togiola said.

The senator pointed out that testimony from prior hearings showed Leota subsequently entered into a new contract with ASTCA as Chief Operations Officer (COO) and continued receiving the same annual salary of $135,000, along with the same benefits provided under his CEO contract.

"If our records of previous testimony are accurate," Togiola continued, "what exactly caused ASG to become liable for compensation when he did not appear to suffer any financial damages?"

He noted that while the CEO contract may have been terminated before its expiration date, Leota was immediately retained in another executive position at the same salary level.

"The original contract may have been prematurely terminated, but the second contract for the COO position provided the same salary and benefits that he was already entitled to under the original agreement," the senator observed.

Togiola also sought clarification regarding the circumstances surrounding the termination itself.

He questioned whether the decision was reached through mutual agreement between Leota and ASTCA, whether Leota objected to the termination, or whether the action was taken unilaterally by the authority or administration.

"And the final question is, was the termination of Mr. Leota's original contract done after an agreement was reached between him and ASG?" Togiola asked. "Or was it done despite his objections? Whose decision was it, and how did that result in ASG becoming obligated to pay compensation of $135,000?"

The committee chairman stated that, based on the information currently available to senators, lawmakers remain unconvinced that the circumstances justify compensation to Leota.

Togiola said the committee's preliminary view is that ASTCA and the government should not have been required to make such a payment if Leota suffered no measurable financial loss as a result of the transition from CEO to COO.

AMERICA250 

Responding to questions from Committee Chairman Senator Togiola regarding the financial contributions of the Reid Group as a co-sponsor of the America250 celebration, current ASTCA CEO Folasaitu provided what she said was a detailed accounting of the event's expenses and the payments received from the private-sector partner.

According to Folasaitu, the total cost of the America250 celebration amounted to $688,133.52. Under the co-sponsorship arrangement, the expenses were divided equally between the American Samoa Telecommunications Authority (ASTCA) and the Reid Group, resulting in each party's share totaling $344,066.76.

Addressing concerns raised by senators that committee records did not reflect any contribution from the Reid Group, Folasaitu testified that payments had in fact been received and properly documented.

She told lawmakers that ASTCA received two wire transfers totaling $288,000 from the Reid Group through Ford Samoa Motors on July 18, 2026. In addition, ASTCA received another payment of $128,915 on August 26, 2026.

Folasaitu further explained that, beyond the funds deposited directly into ASTCA's account, the Reid Group also paid invoices totaling approximately $55,000 related to the event. Those payments, she said, were made directly and therefore did not appear as deposits in ASTCA's financial records.

According to the CEO, all transactions are reflected in ASTCA's bank statements and supporting financial documentation. She informed the committee that copies of the wire transfers, bank records, invoices, and other supporting documents had been compiled and submitted to senators for review.

In addition, Folasaitu stated that copies of the co-sponsorship agreement with the Reid Group had been submitted. All bills have been settled and the A250 organizing committee has been dissolved after all records were reconciled.

Senator Togiola T.A. Tulafono questioned why key information in the financial documents submitted to the committee had been redacted, specifically noting that certain account numbers had been blacked out.

In response, the ASTCA CEO said the authority would resubmit the documents with the redacted information restored.

Togiola further observed that large portions of the report had been redacted, with the exception of entries identifying Samoa Motors. He questioned why some information had been withheld from lawmakers conducting the investigation.

Folasaitu explained that the documents contained personal and confidential information relating to ASTCA customers. According to the CEO, some transactions reflected customer credits and account activity that could reveal private financial information when payments exceeded amounts reflected in bank statements.

She told senators that ASTCA had redacted the information to protect customer privacy, not to conceal details related to the committee's inquiry.

However, Folasaitu assured lawmakers that if the committee required access to the complete records, ASTCA would provide the information after consulting with its legal counsel to ensure that customer confidentiality requirements were properly addressed.

The CEO also clarified that the bank statements submitted to the committee were from ASTCA's account at the Territorial Bank of American Samoa (TBAS), which she described as the authority's primary banking institution.

Folasaitu noted that ASTCA maintains only one other banking relationship, that with Syniverse Bank, which is used exclusively for telecommunications roaming services. She explained that the arrangement is a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirement and is standard practice among telecommunications providers.

Folasaitu also clarified that the report previously submitted to the committee was essentially the same report lawmakers already had in their possession, with the only differences being the additional supporting documents and financial information she had provided during the latest hearing.

She explained that the supplemental documents, including bank records, wire-transfer confirmations, and invoices, were submitted to address questions raised by committee members regarding the A250 celebration expenses and the Reid Group's financial contributions.

ASTCA COO CHUCK LEOTA

The committee then shifted its focus to matters surrounding former ASTCA CEO Chuck Leota's employment contracts.

ASTCA Chief Operations Officer Chuck Leota answered questions during a hearing examining ASTCA's expenditures that also included issues surrounding Leota's employment contracts and severance arrangements. [photo: Asi A. Fa'asau]

Senate President Tuaolo Manaia Fruean requested a detailed explanation of Leota's contractual arrangements with ASTCA, including the transition from his position as CEO under the previous administration to his current role as COO.

In response, ASTCA CEO Folasaitu explained that by the time she assumed leadership of the authority, the negotiations concerning Leota's employment had already been completed, with the terms of Leota's contract negotiated and agreed upon by the ASTCA Board of Directors and the Governor, before she became CEO.

She indicated that she was therefore not directly involved in the discussions that led to either the termination of Leota's original CEO contract or the subsequent agreement that placed him in the position of COO.

Folasaitu testified that some members of the ASTCA Board were already aware of the circumstances surrounding the termination of Chuck Leota's contract as CEO before the matter was brought to her attention.

According to CEO Folasaitu, after learning of the situation she continued to work with Leota and, at one point, appointed him to represent ASTCA at a telecommunications meeting in Fiji. However, those plans were later disrupted when Leota was unable to travel because he could not use a Certificate of Identity (CI) for the trip.

Folasaitu told senators that she subsequently raised questions about Leota's employment status and contract during a meeting of the ASTCA Board. At the time, she said, she was not informed that board members had already discussed the issue and had supported the decision to terminate his CEO contract.

She testified that her understanding of the Board's role evolved later during legislative hearings when then-ASTCA Board Chairman Avamua Dave Haleck testified before the Fono. According to Folasaitu, Haleck stated that he had met with Governor Pulaali'i Nikolao Pula, and that it was ultimately the Governor who decided that Leota's CEO contract should be terminated.

However, Folasaitu said subsequent developments revealed that the Board had also played a role in the matter.

She pointed out that the Board's involvement became evident through the settlement agreement that was later reached and supported by the Board, indicating that board members had participated in discussions relating to Leota's contract and the resolution of any claims arising from its termination.

Folasaitu also shared her personal views regarding the decision to remove Chuck Leota from the position of Chief Executive Officer, telling senators that she did not believe the termination should have occurred.

"If you were to ask me then whether terminating Chuck Leota's contract as CEO was the right thing to do, I would have said they should have never removed Chuck," Folasaitu testified.

She explained that her concerns stemmed from provisions of the executive order governing ASTCA's management structure and the respective authority of the Board of Directors and the CEO.

According to Folasaitu, the executive order gives the ASTCA Board the authority to hire the Chief Executive Officer, while the responsibility for hiring other personnel rests with the CEO.

"The reason is that it does not align with the executive order," she stated. "The Board is responsible for hiring the CEO, but the hiring of all other staff is the sole responsibility of the CEO."

In her view, if the administration or the Board wished to make leadership changes, they should have allowed Leota to remain in place until a successor was selected or appointed him to serve in an acting capacity while they determined the authority's future direction.

"They should have waited until a new CEO was selected or kept him as Acting CEO until they figured out exactly what they wanted to do," Folasaitu said.

She further explained that the arrangement ultimately reached with Leota involved removing him from the CEO position and appointing him instead as COO. In exchange, she said, Leota agreed to forego severance benefits that might otherwise have been available under his original contract.

However, Folasaitu told senators that even the negotiated settlement raised questions about compliance with the authority's governing rules.

She argued that the arrangement still did not fully conform to the provisions of a 2018 executive order that clearly defines the duties and responsibilities of the ASTCA Board and the CEO, including who has authority over employment decisions within the organization.

According to Folasaitu, the executive order establishes a framework intended to separate policymaking and oversight responsibilities from day-to-day management functions. As a result, she suggested that the handling of Leota's transition from CEO to COO may not have been entirely consistent with those requirements.

Folasaitu further testified that she amended Leota's contract because, in her view, ASTCA remained obligated to pay the severance benefits provided under his original employment agreement. 

Folasaitu also informed the committee that, as part of the restructuring of Leota's employment arrangement, she removed him from career service status and placed him on a contractual agreement as COO.

She explained that the change was made during the process of negotiating a resolution to issues arising from the termination of Leota's original CEO contract. Under the new arrangement, Leota no longer served as a career service employee but instead held the COO position under the terms of a separate employment contract.

According to Folasaitu, the revised agreement was intended to address concerns surrounding the termination of the CEO contract while allowing ASTCA to retain Leota's experience and institutional knowledge in a senior management role.

According to the CEO, the basis for that position is documented in communications and transcripts involving discussions with the Chief Justice regarding the contractual dispute and proposed settlement.

The hearing then turned to the controversial issue of ASTCA's payment of a child-support obligation on Leota's behalf, a matter that has been the subject of public criticism and previous legislative scrutiny.

Senate President Tuaolo questioned why ASTCA became directly involved in making the payment rather than simply paying Leota any compensation or severance to which he may have been entitled under the settlement agreement.

"Why didn't you just give Leota his severance pay instead of going to all that trouble of carrying out what he should have done himself as he is obligated by law to do?" Tuaolo asked.

In response, Folasaitu defended the decision, arguing that the arrangement was intended to ensure transparency and accountability in the use of ASTCA funds.

She explained that directing the payment to its intended recipient removed any uncertainty about how the money would be used and ensured that the obligation was satisfied in full.

According to Folasaitu, had the funds been paid directly to Leota as a lump-sum settlement, questions could have arisen over whether the money was ultimately used for its intended purpose.

"It was done for transparency and accountability," Folasaitu stated. "If the funds had simply been given to Mr. Leota, there could have been speculation about whether the money was actually used to satisfy the child-support obligation or spent on something else."

She told senators that the decision was made to ensure the payment went directly toward the obligation in question rather than passing through a third party first.

Senator Olo Uluao Letuli later questioned ASTCA COO Leota about the status of his child-support obligation, noting that the approximately $110,000 paid by ASTCA was less than the $135,000 amount that had reportedly been ordered by the court.

Olo asked whether the matter had been fully resolved, given the apparent difference between the amount paid and the amount originally sought.

In response, Leota testified that the issue had been settled locally. However, he explained that proceedings related to the matter were still continuing in the mainland courts and remained under negotiation.

According to Leota, while the local aspects of the child-support case had been resolved, discussions involving the mainland court system had not yet been fully concluded.

Senator Olo indicated that he viewed the child-support issue as a private matter and a legal obligation that Leota was personally responsible for fulfilling. While expressing reservations about delving further into the issue, Olo said his primary concern was understanding the circumstances surrounding Leota's employment arrangement with ASTCA.

The senator asked Leota whether there had been a verbal agreement, written agreement, executive order, or any other understanding under which he was offered the position of COO in exchange for waiving or foregoing severance benefits tied to the termination of his CEO contract.

In response, Leota recounted the events that occurred following the change in administration.

Leota testified that shortly after the Pula and Pulu Administration took office, he was summoned to meet with Governor Pulaali'i. According to Leota, the two held a lengthy discussion during which the Governor explained that the new administration intended to implement leadership changes throughout government departments, agencies, and public authorities.

Leota said the Governor informed him that the decision was not personal but was part of a broader effort to fulfill promises made during the campaign.

According to Leota, Governor Pulaali'i acknowledged his years of service to ASTCA and thanked him for his contributions to the authority.

Leota testified that the Governor then asked him to remain at ASTCA and assist the new chief executive officer who would eventually be appointed to lead the telecommunications authority.

He told senators that he appreciated the Governor's recognition of his service and welcomed the opportunity to continue contributing to the organization he had worked hard to improve over the years. Leota said he accepted the Governor's request and agreed to remain with ASTCA to help ensure a smooth transition of leadership. 

Leota further testified that, following his discussion with Governor Pulaali'i, he requested to be transferred from his contractual position as CEO to a career service position and, in return, agreed to forgo any severance benefits that may have been available under his original contract.

According to Leota, the request was approved, and he served as a career service employee at ASTCA from May 2025 through January 2026.

He explained that the situation later changed when he was selected to attend a telecommunications meeting in Fiji but was unable to travel using a CI. After informing CEO Folasaitu of the problem, the two discussed the possibility of changing his employment status again.

Leota told senators that those discussions eventually led to the renegotiation of his employment arrangement, resulting in his appointment as COO under a contractual agreement.

However, he emphasized that his earlier decision to move into career service status should not be viewed as a trade-off or exchange for other benefits.

According to Leota, the transfer was made in good faith to accommodate the transition to the new administration and to allow him to continue serving ASTCA in a different capacity.

Leota also disputed claims that he continued receiving the same salary he earned as CEO after moving into the COO position.

He testified that while serving as a career service employee, he personally requested a reduction in his annual salary to $95,000, significantly lower than the $135,000 per year he received under his CEO contract.

The COO said assertions that he remained at the same salary level throughout the transition were inaccurate.