Public confidence in the electoral process depends on transparency. So when a Board of Elections committee meeting devolves into confusion over public access, it raises valid concerns — not just about procedure, but about trust.
In the early hours of Sept. 3, the Elections System issued a press release announcing a virtual meeting of the Board’s Grievance and Resolution Committee, scheduled for the evening of Sept. 4. The release, sent on behalf of Committee Chairwoman Harriet Mercer, declared that “in keeping with the Sunshine Act,” all board members, media, and the general public were “invited to attend and to contribute accordingly.” It even included contact information for requesting a Microsoft Teams link to join the meeting.
Then, just hours later — at 4:11 p.m. on Sept. 3 — the notice was rescinded. A new release was sent “on behalf of the Chairman,” stating only that the prior message had been “discontinued.” No explanation. No clarification. No follow-up.
To be fair, the change appears to have been an effort to correct a procedural misstep. As precedent and local law make clear, committee meetings — unlike full board sessions — are not always open to the public. Title 1, Chapter 15, Section 254 of the Virgin Islands Code (the Sunshine Act) applies to legislative committees, but not necessarily to appointed government boards like the Board of Elections. And in most cases, committee meetings that don’t involve formal action or voting aren’t subject to the same notice requirements.
Still, the invitation went out. It cited the law. It created an expectation. That expectation was not met.
The Source reached out early Thursday to confirm access. Reporter Finn Sharpless contacted the Elections System’s Executive Assistant, Richard Wilson, who stated that he would not provide the Teams link. What Wilson refused to say was whether the meeting itself would be public or whether any notes or materials from it would be made available afterward. Instead, he directed the Source to Chairwoman Mercer and Chairman Williams, whom our reporter called and emailed with no response prior to the meeting. Additional calls to the Elections System of the Virgin Islands provided no further clarity; staff simply referred questions back to Wilson, who would not elaborate.
The Source never received the Teams link. Mercer later told the Source that no one outside the Elections System’s board and staff had received that link and that, shortly before the meeting began, it became inaccessible even to internal attendees. Fortunately, she said, a Zoom link had been created earlier in the day by the committee secretary and shared “via multiple platforms.” While this may have included some media who were able to cover the meeting, it did not include the Source.
It wasn’t until just after 5 a.m. on Saturday, Sept. 6, that Mercer responded to the reporter’s original inquiry. In a follow-up message to the publisher sent at 6:01 a.m., she asked to confirm the reporter’s identity, as he had used a personal email address for his inquiry, though clearly identifying himself, whom he worked for, and what information he needed. When the reporter later requested a transcript or notes from the meeting, Mercer replied that she would need to consult with her committee colleagues first, writing:
“Good morning and please pardon me, for this is the very first time I’ve seen this email. Perhaps other than the typical reasons such as delivery delay, these turbulent times of the BOE might definitely be the reason for that. I am not ignoring you. Kindly allow me the opportunity to share this with my executive members of the GRC. We will review it well, before I provide you with an appropriate response asap.”
The Source has made every effort to fairly and accurately cover the work of the Board of Elections. Previous full board meetings have often times been marred by technical difficulties, including poor audio quality during virtual sessions. When these issues have led to errors in our reporting, we have, in good faith, worked with Board members to promptly correct the record — even switching reporters when needed to ensure clearer coverage. And, to really avoid confusion, when there are meetings that are simply too difficult to follow or fully understand, we’ve opted not to publish a story at all — recognizing that doing so might prompt concern from the Board, whose members have, at times, indicated they may withhold access to meetings or make themselves unavailable for comment. Transparency and accuracy go hand in hand, and we remain committed to both.
There’s no need to assume ill intent — in fact, the committee should be credited for its apparent desire to hold its work in the open. But once that invitation is made, public bodies have an obligation to follow through. Silence, delays, or uneven access erode trust in institutions that cannot afford to be opaque.
In a time when election oversight is under intense scrutiny — both nationally and here at home — miscommunications like this are not just inconvenient. They’re damaging. Meetings that involve public business, even when closed, should be accompanied by a clear explanation. If rules are changing or if notice was sent in error, say so. If links are being distributed, make sure the process is consistent — and that reporters aren’t left chasing shadows.
The Board of Elections exists to protect the integrity of the vote. That work deserves to be understood — and when possible, seen.
