Dear Source:
Governor John deJongh has relied on two opinions issued by the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands that warrant input from the general population in view of the ramifications of those opinions on public governance.
In the first instance, an acting attorney general advised on the propriety of using public funds to provide added security at the governor’s private residence on the basis that the governor elected to reside at his personal home during his incumbency as Governor of the Virgin Islands rather than in a government-owned facility. From the outset, this writer disagreed with the acting attorney general’s reasoning when he expressed the opinion that the expenditure of public funds on the governor’s private residence was allowable. This writer was fully cognizant that the 1954 Organic Act identified government house as the official place of residence of the Governor of the Virgin Islands and to the best of his knowledge, the Organic Act was not amended to provide another venue, nor was he then, nor is he now aware that the Virgin Islands Government at any time petitioned the Congress to allow the local legislature to make that determination by virtue of the delegation of congressional authority in the matter. These facts would appear to be enough to dissuade the writing of an opinion that was subsequently used to justify the reprogramming and spending of several hundred thousand dollars of public funds on the governor’s private property. The recent release of the Department of Interior’s Inspector General Final report on the matter has declared the reprogramming of the funds used to enhance security at the governor’s private residence as illegal. Among the recommendations made is the following:
“Ensure that funds redirected to the Department of Public Works by Act No. 6917 and improperly expended for security improvements at the Governor’s private residence be returned and used as intended.”
Obviously the opinion depended upon to validate the expenditure and the method used to obtain the funds is deemed inappropriate and illegal. This writer believes that in addition to the limited issue on the legality of reprogramming funds appropriated by the legislature for classes of projects that do not include security enhancements at the governor’s private residence, there is in addition the ethicality of the governor’s personal involvement in the process leading to the actual reprogramming and use of those funds that inevitably would have resulted in increased valuation of his private property at public expense. Until the public became engaged in open commentary about the work that was being done on the property there was no public awareness of a plan to remove and return permanently installed security enhancements to the people of the Virgin Islands. It is unconscionable and also unethical to expect the people of the territory to absorb this almost one half million dollar expenditure with its long-term personal beneficial effects for the governor and his family. So, for this writer, the matter goes beyond the question of legality versus illegality. The Inspector General’s report addresses the legal/illegal aspect clearly and only. The ethical question is not addressed, but that too is significant in assessing the quality of gubernatorial leadership. Beyond the legal-illegal issue, the compounding issue worth scrutiny is about conscience and right versus wrong!
The second and most recent circumstance in which the governor relied on an opinion issued by the Attorney General is the situation wherein he chose to withhold forwarding the draft constitution to the President of the United States within days following the constitutional convention’s submission of the document to him. His duty was to perform the purely ministerial function of forwarding the convention’s work to the president. Unilaterally he chose not to perform that duty. The Mandamus Decree that was granted by the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands was exactly what this writer expected, though it took longer than anticipated. It repudiated both the AG’s opinion and the governor’s reliance on it. Nowhere in the congressional legislation authorizing the writing of a draft constitution is there any language authorizing the governor to take the action that he took to withhold forwarding the draft document to the president, notwithstanding any opinion of the attorney general to the contrary. Nor did the authorizing legislation require or request gubernatorial comment on the document and especially comment designed to thwart the will of the convention. In this writer’s view, the Mandamus Decree nullified the Attorney General’s opinion that would otherwise have remained on our law books with the same force and effect of law as if legislatively enacted.
The question that an informed public should ask is why are these kinds of opinions being issued? This writer believes that minimum probing will reveal an answer just beneath the surface. Another relevant question begging to be asked is why is the governor serving as chairperson on any board or commission alongside subordinate employees within his administration? This writer believes that legislation should be enacted to curb the intimidating effect of the governor’s presence on his subordinates in matters of either their speech or their vote. The governor should be removed from all decision-making boards and commissions conducting the people’s business. He should not be in a position to exert undue influence, directly or indirectly by his presence and participation on government or citizen dominated boards, commissions and other instrumentalities engaged in public policy deliberations and actions. This writer believes that the legislature should recognize the need for a declaratory public policy statement enshrined in public law stating who board and commissions’ members represent when discharging their sworn duties. Are they representing the people or are they serving merely as extensions of the governor’s office? There is deafening silence on this issue. Only the legislature can clarify and codify the proper response to this matter. Perhaps the issues that we face today, including the contents of the IG’s report would not have taken place if the legislation asked for in this writing was already in place.
Gaylord A Sprauve
