After a tumultuous series of Elections Board meetings — the last two of which collapsed over a lack of quorum and repeated back-and-forth between members — senators pressed for answers Friday during a hearing of the Government Operations, Veterans Affairs, and Consumer Protection Committee.
Territorial Elections Board Chair Raymond Williams shared his perspective on what happened during last Thursday’s meeting, which he said was meant to discuss the bills before Friday’s Senate agenda as well as Act 8690 — the 2024 law that shifted many election-related responsibilities from the board to the supervisor of Elections, including personnel decisions, budget control, and operational oversight.
The session began with a motion to include virtual members from St. Thomas, which initially failed. “Because the business that is before us today was deemed so important, I allowed the reconsideration of the motion by members in person, which was approved,” Williams said. A roll call then recognized members in both districts, virtually and in person, with eight members physically present on St. Croix.
From there, “a series of motions were made to remove the item from the agenda, failed, reorder the agenda, failed. At some point there, because of the dynamics of being unable to collectively match our members and because of the continuous interjections and interruptions, several members got up and left, forcing that quorum to be broken — so the discussions weren’t held,” Williams said Friday.
Williams noted the board has been trying to deliberate on Act 8690 for some time, without success. “It is still my goal to convene the board real soon to do the people’s business,” he said.
However, last week, other board members challenged Williams’ fairness in scheduling board meetings — particularly after they said they requested a 2:30 p.m. time and, on the St. Thomas-St. John side, made clear they would not be able to attend in person. Elections Board Vice Chair Lawrence Boschulte, speaking to the Source, said the meeting was scheduled for 10 a.m. instead and argued that because the two districts are split evenly with seven members each, there’s no need for all of the St. Thomas-St. John contingent to travel to form a quorum, which he said undermines district representation. Board member Cleopatra Peter has also maintained that she has consistently championed a meeting to discuss Act 8690, but has met resistance from other members, including Williams.
“He’s not making the meetings accessible to the public,” Boschulte said last week. Williams countered during Friday’s hearing that the shift to in-person meetings was intended to improve accessibility, given ongoing sound issues with the board’s video conferencing system. He added that while virtual links are sent to members of the public, monitoring those sessions — especially when moving into executive session — has proved difficult.
The tensions within the board and the growing concern over the balance of power between the Elections Board and the supervisor of Elections set the stage for much of Friday’s legislative discussion as lawmakers considered two measures intended to clarify authority and responsibilities within the Elections System. “We’re meeting today to see if we can help, but I’m not here to be policing grown man and grown woman,” committee Chair Sen. Avery Lewis said.
The first, Bill No. 36-0071, sponsored by Sen. Alma Francis Heyliger, sought to amend Title 18 of the Virgin Islands Code to clearly define the role of the supervisor of Elections, establish qualifications for the position, and set parameters for hiring, discipline, and removal. It also aimed to affirm the supervisor’s administrative authority while ensuring the Board retains oversight — a step Francis Heyliger said was needed to address “ongoing confusion and disputes” about the law’s intent. She also noted that in this technological age, there must be better ways to police meetings to allow for virtual access, and urged board members to work together — especially since the public pays for their attendance.
The second measure, Bill No. 36-0073, proposed changes to ensure greater transparency in the Elections System’s operations, including requirements for timely public access to meeting agendas, minutes, and official decisions. Supporters said the bill would build public trust and accountability, while opponents warned it could create overlapping mandates that complicate operations.
Supervisor of Elections Caroline Fawkes defended the current structure under Act 8690, saying it allows her office to effectively manage day-to-day operations while still operating under the Board’s policy oversight. She cautioned that further statutory changes could risk “rolling back progress” made since the 2020 election cycle. Democratic Party Chair Carol Burke countered that without clearer definitions of authority, disputes between the Supervisor and the Board would continue to disrupt the system’s work.
Despite extensive discussion, neither bill advanced out of committee, as Lewis said the testimony and debate underscored deep divisions that must be resolved before meaningful reforms can move forward.
