Sept. 13, 2002 – The Public Services Commission voted on Thursday to suspend its investigation of Innovative Telephone's handling of the $1 surcharge the company collects on behalf of the government for 911 emergency services. Its reason was that a federal agency is about to do the same thing.
It also voted not to make the telephone company's financial records available for public scrutiny, rejecting the arguments of the hearing examiner for its Innovative rate investigation that the documents are public record under territorial and federal law.
Desmond Maynard, PSC chair, said the U.S. Inspector General's Office is initiating a federal audit of the surcharge funds. He suggested the PSC "might benefit" from the federal investigation and said he saw no reason to subject Innovative to two investigations. "If time is not a problem, why not wait?" Maynard said.
Sen. Emmet Hansen II, a non-voting commission member, objected to Maynard's suggestion. "I think it is ridiculous that the PSC would abdicate their statutory responsibility and oversight just because they heard that another entity is conducting a similar investigation," Hansen said. "The PSC needs to perform its function and conduct their own investigation."
Nonetheless, the commission voted unanimously to suspend its investigation.
Arnold Van Beverhoudt, Caribbean region audit manager for the U.S. Inspector General's Office, confirmed Friday that the office will initiate an audit the week of Oct. 7.
Fred Watts, PSC hearing examiner, said he has paper "a foot tall" already assembled in his investigation, comparing phone company bills sent out with the records of payments to the Finance Department. However, Watts said, "If you want to suspend the investigation, so be it."
Sen. Adlah "Foncie" Donastorg, long a critic of the telephone company's financial operations, has accused Innovative of wrongful collection practices and has sued the company on behalf of the people of the territory in District Court. Additionally, on May 1, he announced that he had requested a federal audit of the emergency services surcharge operations and had filed a new complaint with the Public Services Commission, which regulates the phone company.
Donastorg contends that the approximately $60,000 a month Innovative has been turning over to the government does not represent anywhere near the total amount it has collected each month. The amount corresponds roughly to the number of customers, he said, and not "the actual number of telephone lines, which is, by informed estimates, well over 90,000."
At the same time, Donastorg says the intent of the law making Innovative the collector of the surcharge was to impose a fee of $1 per telephone subscriber, regardless of the number of lines that a customer may have. Innovative has in most cases been billing customers $1 per phone line. Donastorg says many customers have multiple lines — he, himself, having five, and thus having gotten five bills with five surcharges..
In May, Innovative Vice President Holland Redfield wrote to Gov. Charles W. Turnbull asking that the company be relieved of responsibility for collecting the tax. (See "Innovative wants to stop billing for 911 tax".) Turnbull subsequently turned over collection of the surcharge to the Water and Power Authority.
In another Innovative matter, the PSC elected to recognize a highly debated "letter of confidentiality" over the V.I. Sunshine Act.
The V.I. Source newspapers had requested copies of Innovative Telephone's annual financial reports which the company is required to file with the PSC. The Source wrote to Maynard in May requesting the documents, which the newspaper believes are public record under the V.I. Sunshine Act and/or the federal Freedom of Information Act.
In May, Kevin Rames, attorney for Innovative Communication Corp., the parent company of Innovative Telephone, filed a complaint with the PSC opposing the release of the records. Rames also contended that the PSC had not notified him and that the agenda was not circulated in a timely manner. PSC hearing examiner Fred Watts called Rames's arguments "ridiculous," saying he had corresponded "four or five" times about the matter with ICC attorney J'Ada Finch-Sheen.
Rames argued that the Sunshine and FOI Acts are not applicable in the case. He said in his complaint that the FOI does not apply to "states, local governments, the courts, Congress or private persons, and is not applicable to the PSC." Nor does the Sunshine act allow the Source access to sensitive financial information, the complaint said.
Rames cited a 1989 settlement agreement between Vitelco and several other entities including the Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative and the PSC which protects certain information. Watts said the agreement doesn't apply in the case.
At a PSC meeting on St. Croix in July, the matter was supposed to be heard. The Source was represented, but Rames didn't appear. On Thursday, Rames again was not present, but attorney Julio Brady was there to represent ICC. Brady made many of the same arguments that Rames had previously made and also said releasing the financial documents would give competitors an "unfair advantage."
Watts again argued that the documents should be released under the Sunshine Act. He also reminded Innovative that it had three months in which to submit an affidavit citing any complaints.
Brady said the material in the financial records is confidential, citing a letter Innovative had written to Claudius F. Moore, PSC accounts maintenance officer, requesting confidentiality for Innovative's records.
Moore said the PSC never agreed to that request and said that it was not incumbent on the commission to do so. "There was no written response," he said. "The PSC did not accede [to that request]. It is the PSC's position that such documents are not confidential." Watts added, "There is not one document saying we agree to that letter of confidentiality."
On a 4-3 vote, the commission defeated a motion to order Innovative to make the financial records public. Watts said it was the first such case the PSC has experienced, adding, "It's a poor way to make public policy."
Voting against making the documents public were Valencio Jackson, Luther Renee, Alric Simmonds and Alecia Wells. Voting to make them available were Jerris Brown, Vernon David and Maynard.
Publisher's note : Like the St. Thomas Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
PSC DROPS 911 FEE PROBE, DENIES ACCESS TO RECORDS
Sept. 13, 2002 – The Public Services Commission voted on Thursday to suspend its investigation of Innovative Telephone's handling of the $1 surcharge the company collects on behalf of the government for 911 emergency services. Its reason was that a federal agency is about to do the same thing.
It also voted not to make the telephone company's financial records available for public scrutiny, rejecting the arguments of the hearing examiner for its Innovative rate investigation that the documents are public record under territorial and federal law.
Desmond Maynard, PSC chair, said the U.S. Inspector General's Office is initiating a federal audit of the surcharge funds. He suggested the PSC "might benefit" from the federal investigation and said he saw no reason to subject Innovative to two investigations. "If time is not a problem, why not wait?" Maynard said.
Sen. Emmet Hansen II, a non-voting commission member, objected to Maynard's suggestion. "I think it is ridiculous that the PSC would abdicate their statutory responsibility and oversight just because they heard that another entity is conducting a similar investigation," Hansen said. "The PSC needs to perform its function and conduct their own investigation."
Nonetheless, the commission voted unanimously to suspend its investigation.
Arnold Van Beverhoudt, Caribbean region audit manager for the U.S. Inspector General's Office, confirmed Friday that the office will initiate an audit the week of Oct. 7.
Fred Watts, PSC hearing examiner, said he has paper "a foot tall" already assembled in his investigation, comparing phone company bills sent out with the records of payments to the Finance Department. However, Watts said, "If you want to suspend the investigation, so be it."
Sen. Adlah "Foncie" Donastorg, long a critic of the telephone company's financial operations, has accused Innovative of wrongful collection practices and has sued the company on behalf of the people of the territory in District Court. Additionally, on May 1, he announced that he had requested a federal audit of the emergency services surcharge operations and had filed a new complaint with the Public Services Commission, which regulates the phone company.
Donastorg contends that the approximately $60,000 a month Innovative has been turning over to the government does not represent anywhere near the total amount it has collected each month. The amount corresponds roughly to the number of customers, he said, and not "the actual number of telephone lines, which is, by informed estimates, well over 90,000."
At the same time, Donastorg says the intent of the law making Innovative the collector of the surcharge was to impose a fee of $1 per telephone subscriber, regardless of the number of lines that a customer may have. Innovative has in most cases been billing customers $1 per phone line. Donastorg says many customers have multiple lines — he, himself, having five, and thus having gotten five bills with five surcharges..
In May, Innovative Vice President Holland Redfield wrote to Gov. Charles W. Turnbull asking that the company be relieved of responsibility for collecting the tax. (See "Innovative wants to stop billing for 911 tax".) Turnbull subsequently turned over collection of the surcharge to the Water and Power Authority.
In another Innovative matter, the PSC elected to recognize a highly debated "letter of confidentiality" over the V.I. Sunshine Act.
The V.I. Source newspapers had requested copies of Innovative Telephone's annual financial reports which the company is required to file with the PSC. The Source wrote to Maynard in May requesting the documents, which the newspaper believes are public record under the V.I. Sunshine Act and/or the federal Freedom of Information Act.
In May, Kevin Rames, attorney for Innovative Communication Corp., the parent company of Innovative Telephone, filed a complaint with the PSC opposing the release of the records. Rames also contended that the PSC had not notified him and that the agenda was not circulated in a timely manner. PSC hearing examiner Fred Watts called Rames's arguments "ridiculous," saying he had corresponded "four or five" times about the matter with ICC attorney J'Ada Finch-Sheen.
Rames argued that the Sunshine and FOI Acts are not applicable in the case. He said in his complaint that the FOI does not apply to "states, local governments, the courts, Congress or private persons, and is not applicable to the PSC." Nor does the Sunshine act allow the Source access to sensitive financial information, the complaint said.
Rames cited a 1989 settlement agreement between Vitelco and several other entities including the Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative and the PSC which protects certain information. Watts said the agreement doesn't apply in the case.
At a PSC meeting on St. Croix in July, the matter was supposed to be heard. The Source was represented, but Rames didn't appear. On Thursday, Rames again was not present, but attorney Julio Brady was there to represent ICC. Brady made many of the same arguments that Rames had previously made and also said releasing the financial documents would give competitors an "unfair advantage."
Watts again argued that the documents should be released under the Sunshine Act. He also reminded Innovative that it had three months in which to submit an affidavit citing any complaints.
Brady said the material in the financial records is confidential, citing a letter Innovative had written to Claudius F. Moore, PSC accounts maintenance officer, requesting confidentiality for Innovative's records.
Moore said the PSC never agreed to that request and said that it was not incumbent on the commission to do so. "There was no written response," he said. "The PSC did not accede [to that request]. It is the PSC's position that such documents are not confidential." Watts added, "There is not one document saying we agree to that letter of confidentiality."
On a 4-3 vote, the commission defeated a motion to order Innovative to make the financial records public. Watts said it was the first such case the PSC has experienced, adding, "It's a poor way to make public policy."
Voting against making the documents public were Valencio Jackson, Luther Renee, Alric Simmonds and Alecia Wells. Voting to make them available were Jerris Brown, Vernon David and Maynard.
Publisher's note : Like the St. John Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
It also voted not to make the telephone company's financial records available for public scrutiny, rejecting the arguments of the hearing examiner for its Innovative rate investigation that the documents are public record under territorial and federal law.
Desmond Maynard, PSC chair, said the U.S. Inspector General's Office is initiating a federal audit of the surcharge funds. He suggested the PSC "might benefit" from the federal investigation and said he saw no reason to subject Innovative to two investigations. "If time is not a problem, why not wait?" Maynard said.
Sen. Emmet Hansen II, a non-voting commission member, objected to Maynard's suggestion. "I think it is ridiculous that the PSC would abdicate their statutory responsibility and oversight just because they heard that another entity is conducting a similar investigation," Hansen said. "The PSC needs to perform its function and conduct their own investigation."
Nonetheless, the commission voted unanimously to suspend its investigation.
Arnold Van Beverhoudt, Caribbean region audit manager for the U.S. Inspector General's Office, confirmed Friday that the office will initiate an audit the week of Oct. 7.
Fred Watts, PSC hearing examiner, said he has paper "a foot tall" already assembled in his investigation, comparing phone company bills sent out with the records of payments to the Finance Department. However, Watts said, "If you want to suspend the investigation, so be it."
Sen. Adlah "Foncie" Donastorg, long a critic of the telephone company's financial operations, has accused Innovative of wrongful collection practices and has sued the company on behalf of the people of the territory in District Court. Additionally, on May 1, he announced that he had requested a federal audit of the emergency services surcharge operations and had filed a new complaint with the Public Services Commission, which regulates the phone company.
Donastorg contends that the approximately $60,000 a month Innovative has been turning over to the government does not represent anywhere near the total amount it has collected each month. The amount corresponds roughly to the number of customers, he said, and not "the actual number of telephone lines, which is, by informed estimates, well over 90,000."
At the same time, Donastorg says the intent of the law making Innovative the collector of the surcharge was to impose a fee of $1 per telephone subscriber, regardless of the number of lines that a customer may have. Innovative has in most cases been billing customers $1 per phone line. Donastorg says many customers have multiple lines — he, himself, having five, and thus having gotten five bills with five surcharges..
In May, Innovative Vice President Holland Redfield wrote to Gov. Charles W. Turnbull asking that the company be relieved of responsibility for collecting the tax. (See "Innovative wants to stop billing for 911 tax".) Turnbull subsequently turned over collection of the surcharge to the Water and Power Authority.
In another Innovative matter, the PSC elected to recognize a highly debated "letter of confidentiality" over the V.I. Sunshine Act.
The V.I. Source newspapers had requested copies of Innovative Telephone's annual financial reports which the company is required to file with the PSC. The Source wrote to Maynard in May requesting the documents, which the newspaper believes are public record under the V.I. Sunshine Act and/or the federal Freedom of Information Act.
In May, Kevin Rames, attorney for Innovative Communication Corp., the parent company of Innovative Telephone, filed a complaint with the PSC opposing the release of the records. Rames also contended that the PSC had not notified him and that the agenda was not circulated in a timely manner. PSC hearing examiner Fred Watts called Rames's arguments "ridiculous," saying he had corresponded "four or five" times about the matter with ICC attorney J'Ada Finch-Sheen.
Rames argued that the Sunshine and FOI Acts are not applicable in the case. He said in his complaint that the FOI does not apply to "states, local governments, the courts, Congress or private persons, and is not applicable to the PSC." Nor does the Sunshine act allow the Source access to sensitive financial information, the complaint said.
Rames cited a 1989 settlement agreement between Vitelco and several other entities including the Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative and the PSC which protects certain information. Watts said the agreement doesn't apply in the case.
At a PSC meeting on St. Croix in July, the matter was supposed to be heard. The Source was represented, but Rames didn't appear. On Thursday, Rames again was not present, but attorney Julio Brady was there to represent ICC. Brady made many of the same arguments that Rames had previously made and also said releasing the financial documents would give competitors an "unfair advantage."
Watts again argued that the documents should be released under the Sunshine Act. He also reminded Innovative that it had three months in which to submit an affidavit citing any complaints.
Brady said the material in the financial records is confidential, citing a letter Innovative had written to Claudius F. Moore, PSC accounts maintenance officer, requesting confidentiality for Innovative's records.
Moore said the PSC never agreed to that request and said that it was not incumbent on the commission to do so. "There was no written response," he said. "The PSC did not accede [to that request]. It is the PSC's position that such documents are not confidential." Watts added, "There is not one document saying we agree to that letter of confidentiality."
On a 4-3 vote, the commission defeated a motion to order Innovative to make the financial records public. Watts said it was the first such case the PSC has experienced, adding, "It's a poor way to make public policy."
Voting against making the documents public were Valencio Jackson, Luther Renee, Alric Simmonds and Alecia Wells. Voting to make them available were Jerris Brown, Vernon David and Maynard.
Publisher's note : Like the St. John Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
PSC DROPS 911 FEE PROBE, DENIES ACCESS TO RECORDS
Sept. 13, 2002 – The Public Services Commission voted on Thursday to suspend its investigation of Innovative Telephone's handling of the $1 surcharge the company collects on behalf of the government for 911 emergency services. Its reason was that a federal agency is about to do the same thing.
It also voted not to make the telephone company's financial records available for public scrutiny, rejecting the arguments of the hearing examiner for its Innovative rate investigation that the documents are public record under territorial and federal law.
Desmond Maynard, PSC chair, said the U.S. Inspector General's Office is initiating a federal audit of the surcharge funds. He suggested the PSC "might benefit" from the federal investigation and said he saw no reason to subject Innovative to two investigations. "If time is not a problem, why not wait?" Maynard said.
Sen. Emmett Hansen II, a non-voting commission member, objected to Maynard's suggestion. "I think it is ridiculous that the PSC would abdicate their statutory responsibility and oversight just because they heard that another entity is conducting a similar investigation," Hansen said. "The PSC needs to perform its function and conduct their own investigation."
Nonetheless, the commission voted unanimously to suspend its investigation.
Arnold Van Beverhoudt, Caribbean region audit manager for the U.S. Inspector General's Office, confirmed Friday that the office will initiate an audit the week of Oct. 7.
Frederick Watts, PSC hearing examiner, said he has paper "a foot tall" already assembled in his investigation, comparing phone company bills sent out with the records of payments to the Finance Department. However, Watts said, "If you want to suspend the investigation, so be it."
Sen. Adlah "Foncie" Donastorg, long a critic of the telephone company's financial operations, has accused Innovative of wrongful collection practices and has sued the company on behalf of the people of the territory in District Court. Additionally, on May 1, he announced that he had requested a federal audit of the emergency services surcharge operations and had filed a new complaint with the Public Services Commission, which regulates the phone company.
Donastorg contends that the approximately $60,000 a month Innovative has been turning over to the government does not represent anywhere near the total amount it has collected each month. The amount corresponds roughly to the number of customers, he said, and not "the actual number of telephone lines, which is, by informed estimates, well over 90,000."
At the same time, Donastorg says the intent of the law making Innovative the collector of the surcharge was to impose a fee of $1 per telephone subscriber, regardless of the number of lines that a customer may have. Innovative has in most cases been billing customers $1 per phone line. Donastorg says many customers have multiple lines — he, himself, having five, and thus having gotten five bills with five surcharges..
In May, Innovative Vice President Holland Redfield wrote to Gov. Charles W. Turnbull asking that the company be relieved of responsibility for collecting the tax. (See "Innovative wants to stop billing for 911 tax".) Turnbull subsequently turned over collection of the surcharge to the Water and Power Authority.
In another Innovative matter, the PSC elected to recognize a highly debated "letter of confidentiality" over the V.I. Sunshine Act.
The V.I. Source newspapers had requested copies of Innovative Telephone's annual financial reports which the company is required to file with the PSC. The Source wrote to Maynard in May requesting the documents, which the newspaper believes are public record under the V.I. Sunshine Act and/or the federal Freedom of Information Act.
In May, Kevin Rames, attorney for Innovative Communication Corp., the parent company of Innovative Telephone, filed a complaint with the PSC opposing the release of the records. Rames also contended that the PSC had not notified him and that the agenda was not circulated in a timely manner. PSC hearing examiner Fred Watts called Rames's arguments "ridiculous," saying he had corresponded "four or five" times about the matter with ICC attorney J'Ada Finch-Sheen.
Rames argued that the Sunshine and FOI Acts are not applicable in the case. He said in his complaint that the FOI does not apply to "states, local governments, the courts, Congress or private persons, and is not applicable to the PSC." Nor does the Sunshine act allow the Source access to sensitive financial information, the complaint said.
Rames cited a 1989 settlement agreement between Vitelco and several other entities including the Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative and the PSC which protects certain information. Watts said the agreement doesn't apply in the case.
At a PSC meeting on St. Croix in July, the matter was supposed to be heard. The Source was represented, but Rames didn't appear. On Thursday, Rames again was not present, but attorney Julio Brady was there to represent ICC. Brady made many of the same arguments that Rames had previously made and also said releasing the financial documents would give competitors an "unfair advantage."
Watts again argued that the documents should be released under the Sunshine Act. He also reminded Innovative that it had three months in which to submit an affidavit citing any complaints.
Brady said the material in the financial records is confidential, citing a letter Innovative had written to Claudius F. Moore, PSC accounts maintenance officer, requesting confidentiality for Innovative's records.
Moore said the PSC never agreed to that request and said that it was not incumbent on the commission to do so. "There was no written response," he said. "The PSC did not accede [to that request]. It is the PSC's position that such documents are not confidential." Watts added, "There is not one document saying we agree to that letter of confidentiality."
On a 4-3 vote, the commission defeated a motion to order Innovative to make the financial records public. Watts said it was the first such case the PSC has experienced, adding, "It's a poor way to make public policy."
Voting against making the documents public were Valencio Jackson, Luther Renee, Alric Simmonds and Alecia Wells. Voting to make them available were Jerris Brown, Vernon David and Maynard.
Publisher's note : Like the St. Croix Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
It also voted not to make the telephone company's financial records available for public scrutiny, rejecting the arguments of the hearing examiner for its Innovative rate investigation that the documents are public record under territorial and federal law.
Desmond Maynard, PSC chair, said the U.S. Inspector General's Office is initiating a federal audit of the surcharge funds. He suggested the PSC "might benefit" from the federal investigation and said he saw no reason to subject Innovative to two investigations. "If time is not a problem, why not wait?" Maynard said.
Sen. Emmett Hansen II, a non-voting commission member, objected to Maynard's suggestion. "I think it is ridiculous that the PSC would abdicate their statutory responsibility and oversight just because they heard that another entity is conducting a similar investigation," Hansen said. "The PSC needs to perform its function and conduct their own investigation."
Nonetheless, the commission voted unanimously to suspend its investigation.
Arnold Van Beverhoudt, Caribbean region audit manager for the U.S. Inspector General's Office, confirmed Friday that the office will initiate an audit the week of Oct. 7.
Frederick Watts, PSC hearing examiner, said he has paper "a foot tall" already assembled in his investigation, comparing phone company bills sent out with the records of payments to the Finance Department. However, Watts said, "If you want to suspend the investigation, so be it."
Sen. Adlah "Foncie" Donastorg, long a critic of the telephone company's financial operations, has accused Innovative of wrongful collection practices and has sued the company on behalf of the people of the territory in District Court. Additionally, on May 1, he announced that he had requested a federal audit of the emergency services surcharge operations and had filed a new complaint with the Public Services Commission, which regulates the phone company.
Donastorg contends that the approximately $60,000 a month Innovative has been turning over to the government does not represent anywhere near the total amount it has collected each month. The amount corresponds roughly to the number of customers, he said, and not "the actual number of telephone lines, which is, by informed estimates, well over 90,000."
At the same time, Donastorg says the intent of the law making Innovative the collector of the surcharge was to impose a fee of $1 per telephone subscriber, regardless of the number of lines that a customer may have. Innovative has in most cases been billing customers $1 per phone line. Donastorg says many customers have multiple lines — he, himself, having five, and thus having gotten five bills with five surcharges..
In May, Innovative Vice President Holland Redfield wrote to Gov. Charles W. Turnbull asking that the company be relieved of responsibility for collecting the tax. (See "Innovative wants to stop billing for 911 tax".) Turnbull subsequently turned over collection of the surcharge to the Water and Power Authority.
In another Innovative matter, the PSC elected to recognize a highly debated "letter of confidentiality" over the V.I. Sunshine Act.
The V.I. Source newspapers had requested copies of Innovative Telephone's annual financial reports which the company is required to file with the PSC. The Source wrote to Maynard in May requesting the documents, which the newspaper believes are public record under the V.I. Sunshine Act and/or the federal Freedom of Information Act.
In May, Kevin Rames, attorney for Innovative Communication Corp., the parent company of Innovative Telephone, filed a complaint with the PSC opposing the release of the records. Rames also contended that the PSC had not notified him and that the agenda was not circulated in a timely manner. PSC hearing examiner Fred Watts called Rames's arguments "ridiculous," saying he had corresponded "four or five" times about the matter with ICC attorney J'Ada Finch-Sheen.
Rames argued that the Sunshine and FOI Acts are not applicable in the case. He said in his complaint that the FOI does not apply to "states, local governments, the courts, Congress or private persons, and is not applicable to the PSC." Nor does the Sunshine act allow the Source access to sensitive financial information, the complaint said.
Rames cited a 1989 settlement agreement between Vitelco and several other entities including the Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative and the PSC which protects certain information. Watts said the agreement doesn't apply in the case.
At a PSC meeting on St. Croix in July, the matter was supposed to be heard. The Source was represented, but Rames didn't appear. On Thursday, Rames again was not present, but attorney Julio Brady was there to represent ICC. Brady made many of the same arguments that Rames had previously made and also said releasing the financial documents would give competitors an "unfair advantage."
Watts again argued that the documents should be released under the Sunshine Act. He also reminded Innovative that it had three months in which to submit an affidavit citing any complaints.
Brady said the material in the financial records is confidential, citing a letter Innovative had written to Claudius F. Moore, PSC accounts maintenance officer, requesting confidentiality for Innovative's records.
Moore said the PSC never agreed to that request and said that it was not incumbent on the commission to do so. "There was no written response," he said. "The PSC did not accede [to that request]. It is the PSC's position that such documents are not confidential." Watts added, "There is not one document saying we agree to that letter of confidentiality."
On a 4-3 vote, the commission defeated a motion to order Innovative to make the financial records public. Watts said it was the first such case the PSC has experienced, adding, "It's a poor way to make public policy."
Voting against making the documents public were Valencio Jackson, Luther Renee, Alric Simmonds and Alecia Wells. Voting to make them available were Jerris Brown, Vernon David and Maynard.
Publisher's note : Like the St. Croix Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
REVISED LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR PRIMARY ELECTION
Sept. 1, 2002 – Supervisor John Abramson Jr. of the Election System of the Virgin Islands issued on Aug. 29, 2002, this revised list of candidates for the primary election, with name and position as they will appear on the official ballot.
Democratic Party of the Virgin Islands
Senator At-Large
1. Craig W. Barshinger
2. Harry A. Daniel
Senator – District of St. Croix
1. Atty. Ronald E. Russell
2. Juan Figueroa Serville
3. Michael Thurland
4. Elroi E. Baumann
5. Mary Ann Pickard
6. Nemmy Williams-Felix
7. David S. Jones
8. Douglas E. Canton
9. Rev. Malcolm Harris
10. Luther F. Renee
Board of Elections – District of St. Croix
1. Evelyn Messer James
2. Rupert Ross, Jr.
3. Elizabeth "Betty" Lynch
4. Dodson K. James
5. Emilio Rodriguez, Jr.
6. Carmen Marrero O'Reilly
State Chairman
1. Marylyn Stapleton
2. James A. O'Bryan
District Chairman – Island of St. Croix
1. Terrence T. Joseph
2. Irving L. Straun, Sr.
District Chairman – Island of St. Thomas
1. Carla Joseph
2. Elmo A. Adams
Member At Large, Territorial Committee
1. Gloria Canegata Waterman
2. Luis A. "Tito" Morales
3. Gregory R. Francis
4. Marylyn A. Stapleton
5. Carmen Gonzalez
6. Horace T. Brooks
7. Sirri Hamad
8. Glen J. Smith
9. Omar B. U. Henry
10. Cedric M. Prince
Member, Territorial Committee, District of St. Thomas
1. Thomas "Tom" Dunn
2. Pierina Jacobs-McBrowne
3. Elmo A. Adams, Jr.
4. Ervin C. Dorsett
5. June A. Adams
6. Sunil Mohanani
7. Angel "Juanie" Turnbull
8. Gerald E. Hodge, Sr.
9. Michael Farrington
Member, Territorial Committee, District of St. Croix
1. Sonia Boyce
2. David A. Molloy
3. Rupert W. Ross, Jr.
4. Kearney R. Nichols
5. Collin "Massive" Hodge
6. St. Claire N. Williams
7. Arthur C. Petersen, Jr.
8. Raymond T. James, ESQ.
9. Irving L. Straun, Sr.
10. Paul Flemming
11. Cenita "CC" Heywood
Republican Party of the Virgin Islands
State Chairman
1. James A. Oliver
2. April M. Newland
3. Wilma Marsh Monsanto
4. Larence "Lary" Boschulte
Member At-Large, Territorial Committee
1. Herbert Schoenbohm
2. Gladys Orr
3. Reynaldo Callwood
4. Patricia Murphy
5. Hughetta Boulware
6. Frank H. Davis
7. Julio A. Brady
8. April M. Newland
9. Leon Alvin Powell
10. Vincen "Beef" Clendinen
11. Atty. Fred Vialet, Jr.
Member, Territorial Committee, District of St. Thomas/St. John
1. Shirley N. Bronston
2. George Blackhall
3. Alston J. Brewster
4. Roberto Dawson
Member, Territorial Committee, District of St. Croix
1. Humberto O'Neal
2. Reuben Fenton
3. Lilliana Belardo de O'Neal
Independent Citizens Movement
Member At-Large, Territorial Committee
1. Virdin C. Brown
2. Elise Vialet
3. Juan A. Santiago
4. Levron Sarauw, Sr.
5. Andre Ottley
6. Gladys M. Todman
Member, Territorial Committee, District of St. Thomas/St. John
1. Liston A. Davis
2. Gene K. Emmanuel
3. Albion V. Lambertis
4. Elma L. D. Smith
Member, Territorial Committee, District of St. Croix
1. Wilmont A. Edwards
2. David A. Benjamin
3. Alexander A. Petersen, Sr.
4. Mary L. Moorhead
5. Serafin Suarez
Publisher's note : Like the St. Croix Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
Democratic Party of the Virgin Islands
Senator At-Large
1. Craig W. Barshinger
2. Harry A. Daniel
Senator – District of St. Croix
1. Atty. Ronald E. Russell
2. Juan Figueroa Serville
3. Michael Thurland
4. Elroi E. Baumann
5. Mary Ann Pickard
6. Nemmy Williams-Felix
7. David S. Jones
8. Douglas E. Canton
9. Rev. Malcolm Harris
10. Luther F. Renee
Board of Elections – District of St. Croix
1. Evelyn Messer James
2. Rupert Ross, Jr.
3. Elizabeth "Betty" Lynch
4. Dodson K. James
5. Emilio Rodriguez, Jr.
6. Carmen Marrero O'Reilly
State Chairman
1. Marylyn Stapleton
2. James A. O'Bryan
District Chairman – Island of St. Croix
1. Terrence T. Joseph
2. Irving L. Straun, Sr.
District Chairman – Island of St. Thomas
1. Carla Joseph
2. Elmo A. Adams
Member At Large, Territorial Committee
1. Gloria Canegata Waterman
2. Luis A. "Tito" Morales
3. Gregory R. Francis
4. Marylyn A. Stapleton
5. Carmen Gonzalez
6. Horace T. Brooks
7. Sirri Hamad
8. Glen J. Smith
9. Omar B. U. Henry
10. Cedric M. Prince
Member, Territorial Committee, District of St. Thomas
1. Thomas "Tom" Dunn
2. Pierina Jacobs-McBrowne
3. Elmo A. Adams, Jr.
4. Ervin C. Dorsett
5. June A. Adams
6. Sunil Mohanani
7. Angel "Juanie" Turnbull
8. Gerald E. Hodge, Sr.
9. Michael Farrington
Member, Territorial Committee, District of St. Croix
1. Sonia Boyce
2. David A. Molloy
3. Rupert W. Ross, Jr.
4. Kearney R. Nichols
5. Collin "Massive" Hodge
6. St. Claire N. Williams
7. Arthur C. Petersen, Jr.
8. Raymond T. James, ESQ.
9. Irving L. Straun, Sr.
10. Paul Flemming
11. Cenita "CC" Heywood
Republican Party of the Virgin Islands
State Chairman
1. James A. Oliver
2. April M. Newland
3. Wilma Marsh Monsanto
4. Larence "Lary" Boschulte
Member At-Large, Territorial Committee
1. Herbert Schoenbohm
2. Gladys Orr
3. Reynaldo Callwood
4. Patricia Murphy
5. Hughetta Boulware
6. Frank H. Davis
7. Julio A. Brady
8. April M. Newland
9. Leon Alvin Powell
10. Vincen "Beef" Clendinen
11. Atty. Fred Vialet, Jr.
Member, Territorial Committee, District of St. Thomas/St. John
1. Shirley N. Bronston
2. George Blackhall
3. Alston J. Brewster
4. Roberto Dawson
Member, Territorial Committee, District of St. Croix
1. Humberto O'Neal
2. Reuben Fenton
3. Lilliana Belardo de O'Neal
Independent Citizens Movement
Member At-Large, Territorial Committee
1. Virdin C. Brown
2. Elise Vialet
3. Juan A. Santiago
4. Levron Sarauw, Sr.
5. Andre Ottley
6. Gladys M. Todman
Member, Territorial Committee, District of St. Thomas/St. John
1. Liston A. Davis
2. Gene K. Emmanuel
3. Albion V. Lambertis
4. Elma L. D. Smith
Member, Territorial Committee, District of St. Croix
1. Wilmont A. Edwards
2. David A. Benjamin
3. Alexander A. Petersen, Sr.
4. Mary L. Moorhead
5. Serafin Suarez
Publisher's note : Like the St. Croix Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
ST. CROIX REALTORS HELP HOSPITAL BLOOD DRIVE
Juan F. Luis Hospital is experiencing a severe shortage of blood and they need your help. Join the St. Croix Board of Realtors in helping your community.
FAQs about giving blood:
Who can give blood?
Healthy individuals at least 17 years of age who weigh at least 110 pounds and have not given blood in the last 56 days.
Can I get AIDS or any other disease if I give blood?
NO!The procedure itself is very safe! Every donation is taken from a new sterile needle which is immediatly disposed of after that single use. With these procedures you cannot contract the virus that causes AIDS.
Where can I give blood?
Schooner Bay Marketplace
Saturday, September 21st, 2002 – 8:30 AM – 4:30 PM
This Ad Brought To You By the Staff of:
Vacation St. Croix, Vacation Rentals and Property Management
and
Gotts & Associates, Life and Health Insurance for the Caribbean
FAQs about giving blood:
Who can give blood?
Healthy individuals at least 17 years of age who weigh at least 110 pounds and have not given blood in the last 56 days.
Can I get AIDS or any other disease if I give blood?
NO!The procedure itself is very safe! Every donation is taken from a new sterile needle which is immediatly disposed of after that single use. With these procedures you cannot contract the virus that causes AIDS.
Where can I give blood?
Schooner Bay Marketplace
Saturday, September 21st, 2002 – 8:30 AM – 4:30 PM
This Ad Brought To You By the Staff of:
and
Gotts & Associates, Life and Health Insurance for the Caribbean
PSC PUTS OFF VOTING ON STREET LIGHTS SURCHARGE
Sept 13, 2002 – The fate of the territory's street lighting still lies in limbo, as the Public Services Commission decided on Thursday to postpone a decision on the Water and Power Authority's request to add a surcharge of about $1.50 to residential customers' bills to pay for the lighting program.
Since responsibility for the territory's street lighting was transferred from the Public Works Department to WAPA last December, funding for the work has remained unresolved.
When former WAPA executive director Joseph Thomas proposed a surcharge to the Legislature early this year to fund the lighting program, the senators wouldn't hear of the idea of raising residents' electric bills, but they did appropriate $2.8 million to fund the program. Gov. Charles W. Turnbull vetoed the appropriation, but the Senate overrode the veto.
However, WAPA has yet to see a dime of that money, Glenn Rothgeb, WAPA acting executive director, said once again on Thursday, as he has at numerous public meetings before. This was an eventuality Thomas had predicted based on the government's debt owed WAPA for unpaid utility bills.
Rothgeb described the funding issue as a "change of address," meaning the bill goes to the customer instead of Public Works.
Should any of the appropriated government funding become a reality, WAPA would issue a credit on customers' bills, Robert Vodzack, WAPA chief financial officer, told the PSC. Vodzack said WAPA has had "no cash flow since January to maintain the street lights."
The clock is ticking on WAPA's request. If the PSC fails to act on it before Oct. 1, hearing examiner Fred Watts said, the surcharge will automatically go into effect under a V.I. law that gives the PSC 30 days to act on a utility's request. The commission decided to meet again before Oct. 1 to act on the matter.
But that was hardly the end of it.
Lighting on Veterans Drive on St. Thomas — which has seen a number of pedestrian accidents, including fatalities — and on Melvin Evans Highway on St. Croix is inadequate, Desmond Maynard, PSC chairman, said. "People are getting killed on the waterfront — the public suffers," he said.
The WAPA officials said lighting for both roadways is federally funded and that WAPA doesn't receive those funds. Rothgeb said it's easy to see what's what: "The wooden poles are WAPA's and the metal poles are the federal government's." He said responsibility for the federally funded lights falls to Public Works, which receives federal funding for that purpose.
Carole Burke, WAPA board chair, said the utility "is forbidden to provide free electricity, and that's the problem we are facing today." Maynard said the public doesn't see the distinction between lights that are federally funded and those that are not; what they see is that those areas aren't adequately lighted.
After much back and forth regarding who has responsibility for the waterfront and Evans Highway lighting, Maynard left the room and called apparently telephoned Public Works Commissioner Wayne Callwood. "He says the federal lights are WAPA's responsibility," Maynard said upon returning to the meeting.
Sen. Emmett Hansen II, a non-voting commission member, shook his head. "You can't put up street lights with promises," he said. "If the money had been appropriated, we could avoid all this." Hansen was referring to his own Infrastructure Act of 2001, which would have funded the street lighting with a dedicated portion of property taxes. The measure was vetoed by the governor, and his colleagues did not support an override, even though they had almost unanimously approved the bill itself.
Maynard said the commission members needed more time for review of the surcharge. He noted that Georgetown Consulting Group, recently named to replace AUS Consultants as the entity investigating WAPA rates, is still reviewing the matter.
Rothgeb said after the meeting that WAPA has already spent more than $216,000 on the investigation AUS has been conducting for the last 14 months. He said the PSC brought in Georgetown within the past six weeks while AUS was still working on the investigation. V.I. law requires regulated utilities to pay for the PSC's rate investigation costs. He said the PSC has already assessed WAPA $216,000, but the cost so far is probably "closer to $400,000" including WAPA's own expenses.
All commission members attended the meeting: Jerris Browne, Verne David, Valencio Jackson, Maynard, Luther Renee, Alric Simmonds and Alecia Wells, who are voting members; and Sens. Donald "Ducks" Cole and Hansen, who are non-voting members.
Publisher's note : Like the St. Thomas Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
Since responsibility for the territory's street lighting was transferred from the Public Works Department to WAPA last December, funding for the work has remained unresolved.
When former WAPA executive director Joseph Thomas proposed a surcharge to the Legislature early this year to fund the lighting program, the senators wouldn't hear of the idea of raising residents' electric bills, but they did appropriate $2.8 million to fund the program. Gov. Charles W. Turnbull vetoed the appropriation, but the Senate overrode the veto.
However, WAPA has yet to see a dime of that money, Glenn Rothgeb, WAPA acting executive director, said once again on Thursday, as he has at numerous public meetings before. This was an eventuality Thomas had predicted based on the government's debt owed WAPA for unpaid utility bills.
Rothgeb described the funding issue as a "change of address," meaning the bill goes to the customer instead of Public Works.
Should any of the appropriated government funding become a reality, WAPA would issue a credit on customers' bills, Robert Vodzack, WAPA chief financial officer, told the PSC. Vodzack said WAPA has had "no cash flow since January to maintain the street lights."
The clock is ticking on WAPA's request. If the PSC fails to act on it before Oct. 1, hearing examiner Fred Watts said, the surcharge will automatically go into effect under a V.I. law that gives the PSC 30 days to act on a utility's request. The commission decided to meet again before Oct. 1 to act on the matter.
But that was hardly the end of it.
Lighting on Veterans Drive on St. Thomas — which has seen a number of pedestrian accidents, including fatalities — and on Melvin Evans Highway on St. Croix is inadequate, Desmond Maynard, PSC chairman, said. "People are getting killed on the waterfront — the public suffers," he said.
The WAPA officials said lighting for both roadways is federally funded and that WAPA doesn't receive those funds. Rothgeb said it's easy to see what's what: "The wooden poles are WAPA's and the metal poles are the federal government's." He said responsibility for the federally funded lights falls to Public Works, which receives federal funding for that purpose.
Carole Burke, WAPA board chair, said the utility "is forbidden to provide free electricity, and that's the problem we are facing today." Maynard said the public doesn't see the distinction between lights that are federally funded and those that are not; what they see is that those areas aren't adequately lighted.
After much back and forth regarding who has responsibility for the waterfront and Evans Highway lighting, Maynard left the room and called apparently telephoned Public Works Commissioner Wayne Callwood. "He says the federal lights are WAPA's responsibility," Maynard said upon returning to the meeting.
Sen. Emmett Hansen II, a non-voting commission member, shook his head. "You can't put up street lights with promises," he said. "If the money had been appropriated, we could avoid all this." Hansen was referring to his own Infrastructure Act of 2001, which would have funded the street lighting with a dedicated portion of property taxes. The measure was vetoed by the governor, and his colleagues did not support an override, even though they had almost unanimously approved the bill itself.
Maynard said the commission members needed more time for review of the surcharge. He noted that Georgetown Consulting Group, recently named to replace AUS Consultants as the entity investigating WAPA rates, is still reviewing the matter.
Rothgeb said after the meeting that WAPA has already spent more than $216,000 on the investigation AUS has been conducting for the last 14 months. He said the PSC brought in Georgetown within the past six weeks while AUS was still working on the investigation. V.I. law requires regulated utilities to pay for the PSC's rate investigation costs. He said the PSC has already assessed WAPA $216,000, but the cost so far is probably "closer to $400,000" including WAPA's own expenses.
All commission members attended the meeting: Jerris Browne, Verne David, Valencio Jackson, Maynard, Luther Renee, Alric Simmonds and Alecia Wells, who are voting members; and Sens. Donald "Ducks" Cole and Hansen, who are non-voting members.
Publisher's note : Like the St. Thomas Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
PSC PUTS OFF VOTING ON STREET LIGHTS SURCHARGE
Sept 13, 2002 – The fate of the territory's street lighting still lies in limbo, as the Public Services Commission decided on Thursday to postpone a decision on the Water and Power Authority's request to add a surcharge of about $1.50 to residential customers' bills to pay for the lighting program.
Since responsibility for the territory's street lighting was transferred from the Public Works Department to WAPA last December, funding for the work has remained unresolved.
When former WAPA executive director Joseph Thomas proposed a surcharge to the Legislature early this year to fund the lighting program, the senators wouldn't hear of the idea of raising residents' electric bills, but they did appropriate $2.8 million to fund the program. Gov. Charles W. Turnbull vetoed the appropriation, but the Senate overrode the veto.
However, WAPA has yet to see a dime of that money, Glenn Rothgeb, WAPA acting executive director, said once again on Thursday, as he has at numerous public meetings before. This was an eventuality Thomas had predicted based on the government's debt owed WAPA for unpaid utility bills.
Rothgeb described the funding issue as a "change of address," meaning the bill goes to the customer instead of Public Works.
Should any of the appropriated government funding become a reality, WAPA would issue a credit on customers' bills, Robert Vodzack, WAPA chief financial officer, told the PSC. Vodzack said WAPA has had "no cash flow since January to maintain the street lights."
The clock is ticking on WAPA's request. If the PSC fails to act on it before Oct. 1, hearing examiner Fred Watts said, the surcharge will automatically go into effect under a V.I. law that gives the PSC 30 days to act on a utility's request. The commission decided to meet again before Oct. 1 to act on the matter.
But that was hardly the end of it.
Lighting on Veterans Drive on St. Thomas — which has seen a number of pedestrian accidents, including fatalities — and on Melvin Evans Highway on St. Croix is inadequate, Desmond Maynard, PSC chairman, said. "People are getting killed on the waterfront — the public suffers," he said.
The WAPA officials said lighting for both roadways is federally funded and that WAPA doesn't receive those funds. Rothgeb said it's easy to see what's what: "The wooden poles are WAPA's and the metal poles are the federal government's." He said responsibility for the federally funded lights falls to Public Works, which receives federal funding for that purpose.
Carole Burke, WAPA board chair, said the utility "is forbidden to provide free electricity, and that's the problem we are facing today." Maynard said the public doesn't see the distinction between lights that are federally funded and those that are not; what they see is that those areas aren't adequately lighted.
After much back and forth regarding who has responsibility for the waterfront and Evans Highway lighting, Maynard left the room and called apparently telephoned Public Works Commissioner Wayne Callwood. "He says the federal lights are WAPA's responsibility," Maynard said upon returning to the meeting.
Sen. Emmett Hansen II, a non-voting commission member, shook his head. "You can't put up street lights with promises," he said. "If the money had been appropriated, we could avoid all this." Hansen was referring to his own Infrastructure Act of 2001, which would have funded the street lighting with a dedicated portion of property taxes. The measure was vetoed by the governor, and his colleagues did not support an override, even though they had almost unanimously approved the bill itself.
Maynard said the commission members needed more time for review of the surcharge. He noted that Georgetown Consulting Group, recently named to replace AUS Consultants as the entity investigating WAPA rates, is still reviewing the matter.
Rothgeb said after the meeting that WAPA has already spent more than $216,000 on the investigation AUS has been conducting for the last 14 months. He said the PSC brought in Georgetown within the past six weeks while AUS was still working on the investigation. V.I. law requires regulated utilities to pay for the PSC's rate investigation costs. He said the PSC has already assessed WAPA $216,000, but the cost so far is probably "closer to $400,000" including WAPA's own expenses.
All commission members attended the meeting: Jerris Browne, Verne David, Valencio Jackson, Maynard, Luther Renee, Alric Simmonds and Alecia Wells, who are voting members; and Sens. Donald "Ducks" Cole and Hansen, who are non-voting members.
Publisher's note : Like the St. John Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
Since responsibility for the territory's street lighting was transferred from the Public Works Department to WAPA last December, funding for the work has remained unresolved.
When former WAPA executive director Joseph Thomas proposed a surcharge to the Legislature early this year to fund the lighting program, the senators wouldn't hear of the idea of raising residents' electric bills, but they did appropriate $2.8 million to fund the program. Gov. Charles W. Turnbull vetoed the appropriation, but the Senate overrode the veto.
However, WAPA has yet to see a dime of that money, Glenn Rothgeb, WAPA acting executive director, said once again on Thursday, as he has at numerous public meetings before. This was an eventuality Thomas had predicted based on the government's debt owed WAPA for unpaid utility bills.
Rothgeb described the funding issue as a "change of address," meaning the bill goes to the customer instead of Public Works.
Should any of the appropriated government funding become a reality, WAPA would issue a credit on customers' bills, Robert Vodzack, WAPA chief financial officer, told the PSC. Vodzack said WAPA has had "no cash flow since January to maintain the street lights."
The clock is ticking on WAPA's request. If the PSC fails to act on it before Oct. 1, hearing examiner Fred Watts said, the surcharge will automatically go into effect under a V.I. law that gives the PSC 30 days to act on a utility's request. The commission decided to meet again before Oct. 1 to act on the matter.
But that was hardly the end of it.
Lighting on Veterans Drive on St. Thomas — which has seen a number of pedestrian accidents, including fatalities — and on Melvin Evans Highway on St. Croix is inadequate, Desmond Maynard, PSC chairman, said. "People are getting killed on the waterfront — the public suffers," he said.
The WAPA officials said lighting for both roadways is federally funded and that WAPA doesn't receive those funds. Rothgeb said it's easy to see what's what: "The wooden poles are WAPA's and the metal poles are the federal government's." He said responsibility for the federally funded lights falls to Public Works, which receives federal funding for that purpose.
Carole Burke, WAPA board chair, said the utility "is forbidden to provide free electricity, and that's the problem we are facing today." Maynard said the public doesn't see the distinction between lights that are federally funded and those that are not; what they see is that those areas aren't adequately lighted.
After much back and forth regarding who has responsibility for the waterfront and Evans Highway lighting, Maynard left the room and called apparently telephoned Public Works Commissioner Wayne Callwood. "He says the federal lights are WAPA's responsibility," Maynard said upon returning to the meeting.
Sen. Emmett Hansen II, a non-voting commission member, shook his head. "You can't put up street lights with promises," he said. "If the money had been appropriated, we could avoid all this." Hansen was referring to his own Infrastructure Act of 2001, which would have funded the street lighting with a dedicated portion of property taxes. The measure was vetoed by the governor, and his colleagues did not support an override, even though they had almost unanimously approved the bill itself.
Maynard said the commission members needed more time for review of the surcharge. He noted that Georgetown Consulting Group, recently named to replace AUS Consultants as the entity investigating WAPA rates, is still reviewing the matter.
Rothgeb said after the meeting that WAPA has already spent more than $216,000 on the investigation AUS has been conducting for the last 14 months. He said the PSC brought in Georgetown within the past six weeks while AUS was still working on the investigation. V.I. law requires regulated utilities to pay for the PSC's rate investigation costs. He said the PSC has already assessed WAPA $216,000, but the cost so far is probably "closer to $400,000" including WAPA's own expenses.
All commission members attended the meeting: Jerris Browne, Verne David, Valencio Jackson, Maynard, Luther Renee, Alric Simmonds and Alecia Wells, who are voting members; and Sens. Donald "Ducks" Cole and Hansen, who are non-voting members.
Publisher's note : Like the St. John Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
PSC PUTS OFF VOTING ON STREET LIGHTS SURCHARGE
Sept 13, 2002 – The fate of the territory's street lighting still lies in limbo, as the Public Services Commission decided on Thursday to postpone a decision on the Water and Power Authority's request to add a surcharge of about $1.50 to residential customers' bills to pay for the lighting program.
Since responsibility for the territory's street lighting was transferred from the Public Works Department to WAPA last December, funding for the work has remained unresolved.
When former WAPA executive director Joseph Thomas proposed a surcharge to the Legislature early this year to fund the lighting program, the senators wouldn't hear of the idea of raising residents' electric bills, but they did appropriate $2.8 million to fund the program. Gov. Charles W. Turnbull vetoed the appropriation, but the Senate overrode the veto.
However, WAPA has yet to see a dime of that money, Glenn Rothgeb, WAPA acting executive director, said once again on Thursday, as he has at numerous public meetings before. This was an eventuality Thomas had predicted based on the government's debt owed WAPA for unpaid utility bills.
Rothgeb described the funding issue as a "change of address," meaning the bill goes to the customer instead of Public Works.
Should any of the appropriated government funding become a reality, WAPA would issue a credit on customers' bills, Robert Vodzack, WAPA chief financial officer, told the PSC. Vodzack said WAPA has had "no cash flow since January to maintain the street lights."
The clock is ticking on WAPA's request. If the PSC fails to act on it before Oct. 1, hearing examiner Fred Watts said, the surcharge will automatically go into effect under a V.I. law that gives the PSC 30 days to act on a utility's request. The commission decided to meet again before Oct. 1 to act on the matter.
But that was hardly the end of it.
Lighting on Veterans Drive on St. Thomas — which has seen a number of pedestrian accidents, including fatalities — and on Melvin Evans Highway on St. Croix is inadequate, Desmond Maynard, PSC chairman, said. "People are getting killed on the waterfront — the public suffers," he said.
The WAPA officials said lighting for both roadways is federally funded and that WAPA doesn't receive those funds. Rothgeb said it's easy to see what's what: "The wooden poles are WAPA's and the metal poles are the federal government's." He said responsibility for the federally funded lights falls to Public Works, which receives federal funding for that purpose.
Carole Burke, WAPA board chair, said the utility "is forbidden to provide free electricity, and that's the problem we are facing today." Maynard said the public doesn't see the distinction between lights that are federally funded and those that are not; what they see is that those areas aren't adequately lighted.
After much back and forth regarding who has responsibility for the waterfront and Evans Highway lighting, Maynard left the room and called apparently telephoned Public Works Commissioner Wayne Callwood. "He says the federal lights are WAPA's responsibility," Maynard said upon returning to the meeting.
Sen. Emmett Hansen II, a non-voting commission member, shook his head. "You can't put up street lights with promises," he said. "If the money had been appropriated, we could avoid all this." Hansen was referring to his own Infrastructure Act of 2001, which would have funded the street lighting with a dedicated portion of property taxes. The measure was vetoed by the governor, and his colleagues did not support an override, even though they had almost unanimously approved the bill itself.
Maynard said the commission members needed more time for review of the surcharge. He noted that Georgetown Consulting Group, recently named to replace AUS Consultants as the entity investigating WAPA rates, is still reviewing the matter.
Rothgeb said after the meeting that WAPA has already spent more than $216,000 on the investigation AUS has been conducting for the last 14 months. He said the PSC brought in Georgetown within the past six weeks while AUS was still working on the investigation. V.I. law requires regulated utilities to pay for the PSC's rate investigation costs. He said the PSC has already assessed WAPA $216,000, but the cost so far is probably "closer to $400,000" including WAPA's own expenses.
All commission members attended the meeting: Jerris Browne, Verne David, Valencio Jackson, Maynard, Luther Renee, Alric Simmonds and Alecia Wells, who are voting members; and Sens. Donald "Ducks" Cole and Hansen, who are non-voting members.
Publisher's note : Like the St. Croix Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
Since responsibility for the territory's street lighting was transferred from the Public Works Department to WAPA last December, funding for the work has remained unresolved.
When former WAPA executive director Joseph Thomas proposed a surcharge to the Legislature early this year to fund the lighting program, the senators wouldn't hear of the idea of raising residents' electric bills, but they did appropriate $2.8 million to fund the program. Gov. Charles W. Turnbull vetoed the appropriation, but the Senate overrode the veto.
However, WAPA has yet to see a dime of that money, Glenn Rothgeb, WAPA acting executive director, said once again on Thursday, as he has at numerous public meetings before. This was an eventuality Thomas had predicted based on the government's debt owed WAPA for unpaid utility bills.
Rothgeb described the funding issue as a "change of address," meaning the bill goes to the customer instead of Public Works.
Should any of the appropriated government funding become a reality, WAPA would issue a credit on customers' bills, Robert Vodzack, WAPA chief financial officer, told the PSC. Vodzack said WAPA has had "no cash flow since January to maintain the street lights."
The clock is ticking on WAPA's request. If the PSC fails to act on it before Oct. 1, hearing examiner Fred Watts said, the surcharge will automatically go into effect under a V.I. law that gives the PSC 30 days to act on a utility's request. The commission decided to meet again before Oct. 1 to act on the matter.
But that was hardly the end of it.
Lighting on Veterans Drive on St. Thomas — which has seen a number of pedestrian accidents, including fatalities — and on Melvin Evans Highway on St. Croix is inadequate, Desmond Maynard, PSC chairman, said. "People are getting killed on the waterfront — the public suffers," he said.
The WAPA officials said lighting for both roadways is federally funded and that WAPA doesn't receive those funds. Rothgeb said it's easy to see what's what: "The wooden poles are WAPA's and the metal poles are the federal government's." He said responsibility for the federally funded lights falls to Public Works, which receives federal funding for that purpose.
Carole Burke, WAPA board chair, said the utility "is forbidden to provide free electricity, and that's the problem we are facing today." Maynard said the public doesn't see the distinction between lights that are federally funded and those that are not; what they see is that those areas aren't adequately lighted.
After much back and forth regarding who has responsibility for the waterfront and Evans Highway lighting, Maynard left the room and called apparently telephoned Public Works Commissioner Wayne Callwood. "He says the federal lights are WAPA's responsibility," Maynard said upon returning to the meeting.
Sen. Emmett Hansen II, a non-voting commission member, shook his head. "You can't put up street lights with promises," he said. "If the money had been appropriated, we could avoid all this." Hansen was referring to his own Infrastructure Act of 2001, which would have funded the street lighting with a dedicated portion of property taxes. The measure was vetoed by the governor, and his colleagues did not support an override, even though they had almost unanimously approved the bill itself.
Maynard said the commission members needed more time for review of the surcharge. He noted that Georgetown Consulting Group, recently named to replace AUS Consultants as the entity investigating WAPA rates, is still reviewing the matter.
Rothgeb said after the meeting that WAPA has already spent more than $216,000 on the investigation AUS has been conducting for the last 14 months. He said the PSC brought in Georgetown within the past six weeks while AUS was still working on the investigation. V.I. law requires regulated utilities to pay for the PSC's rate investigation costs. He said the PSC has already assessed WAPA $216,000, but the cost so far is probably "closer to $400,000" including WAPA's own expenses.
All commission members attended the meeting: Jerris Browne, Verne David, Valencio Jackson, Maynard, Luther Renee, Alric Simmonds and Alecia Wells, who are voting members; and Sens. Donald "Ducks" Cole and Hansen, who are non-voting members.
Publisher's note : Like the St. Croix Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
OMNIBUS BILL WOULD USURP EXECUTIVE POWERS
Following is a statement of the League of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands on the Omnibus Bill for Fiscal Year 2003:
For all the very many years that the League of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands has reviewed and commented on the proposed executive branch budgets and the more often than not accompanying Omnibus Bill wish lists, this year may well be the most difficult.
The Omnibus Bill reflects the thinking and actions of a Legislature which does not have a clear definition of its own role and its related powers. By proposing appropriations which by their nature establish policies, the senators infringe on the role and related powers of the executive branch.
To appropriate funds specifically for particular vendors or employees for services and contracts not included in the proposed executive budget for Fiscal Year 2003 is not the function of the Legislature. Furthermore, to suggest funding sources for these purposes already committed to the Fiscal Year 2003 executive budget appropriations is, at best, careless.
In the executive budget document for each fiscal year, funding is included to meet personal services for government employees. The League is startled to find included in the Omnibus Bill salaries for employees of non-profit, non-government organizations. Such precedent setting is frightening.
Included in the Omnibus Bill are 16 positions for professional staff at Juan F. Luis Hospital at a cost of approximately $1.5 million to be funded from the General Fund while the cost of the fringe benefits of at least $450,000 is not addressed. Again, this is not an executive proposal. Is the staffing of a hospital now a legislative function? Wasn't it the intent of policy and statute, to date, to grant the hospitals full autonomy? Isn't the legislative proposal to create and fund positions retrogressive? What realistic plans exist for true autonomy for the hospitals?
Who proposes such measures to a senator or senators? Are executive policies and procedures so ill-defined or so convoluted as to create the need for other avenues to solve administrative problems?
Adequate funding for the implementation of the plans to extend the jurisdiction of the Territorial Court has not been available for the last 10 years. Perhaps an appellate court would be beneficial to the territory, but where is the adequate funding for such a project? The Omnibus Bill seeks to use the Industrial Development Fund and the Insurance Guaranty Fund, but these funds are already committed in the proposed budget estimates and are essential to balancing the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget — essential, in fact, to the very operations of the V.I. government. Further, the League wonders how an appellate court is germane to industrial development or to the insurance guarantees to the people of the Virgin Islands?
When will the government of the Virgin Islands shelve its crisis-to-crisis management style? When will financial planning based on reality be the base for decision making, for the preparation of budget proposals from the executive branch and for the commitment of resources in the best interest of the whole community?
The Legislature, by its action in voting up the Omnibus Bill without regard for the revenue projections of the executive branch, has dumped the responsibility for fiscal integrity squarely in the lap of Government House. The league of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands urgently pleads for the judicious application of the veto power.
For all the very many years that the League of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands has reviewed and commented on the proposed executive branch budgets and the more often than not accompanying Omnibus Bill wish lists, this year may well be the most difficult.
The Omnibus Bill reflects the thinking and actions of a Legislature which does not have a clear definition of its own role and its related powers. By proposing appropriations which by their nature establish policies, the senators infringe on the role and related powers of the executive branch.
To appropriate funds specifically for particular vendors or employees for services and contracts not included in the proposed executive budget for Fiscal Year 2003 is not the function of the Legislature. Furthermore, to suggest funding sources for these purposes already committed to the Fiscal Year 2003 executive budget appropriations is, at best, careless.
In the executive budget document for each fiscal year, funding is included to meet personal services for government employees. The League is startled to find included in the Omnibus Bill salaries for employees of non-profit, non-government organizations. Such precedent setting is frightening.
Included in the Omnibus Bill are 16 positions for professional staff at Juan F. Luis Hospital at a cost of approximately $1.5 million to be funded from the General Fund while the cost of the fringe benefits of at least $450,000 is not addressed. Again, this is not an executive proposal. Is the staffing of a hospital now a legislative function? Wasn't it the intent of policy and statute, to date, to grant the hospitals full autonomy? Isn't the legislative proposal to create and fund positions retrogressive? What realistic plans exist for true autonomy for the hospitals?
Who proposes such measures to a senator or senators? Are executive policies and procedures so ill-defined or so convoluted as to create the need for other avenues to solve administrative problems?
Adequate funding for the implementation of the plans to extend the jurisdiction of the Territorial Court has not been available for the last 10 years. Perhaps an appellate court would be beneficial to the territory, but where is the adequate funding for such a project? The Omnibus Bill seeks to use the Industrial Development Fund and the Insurance Guaranty Fund, but these funds are already committed in the proposed budget estimates and are essential to balancing the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget — essential, in fact, to the very operations of the V.I. government. Further, the League wonders how an appellate court is germane to industrial development or to the insurance guarantees to the people of the Virgin Islands?
When will the government of the Virgin Islands shelve its crisis-to-crisis management style? When will financial planning based on reality be the base for decision making, for the preparation of budget proposals from the executive branch and for the commitment of resources in the best interest of the whole community?
The Legislature, by its action in voting up the Omnibus Bill without regard for the revenue projections of the executive branch, has dumped the responsibility for fiscal integrity squarely in the lap of Government House. The league of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands urgently pleads for the judicious application of the veto power.
Editor's note: Erva A. Denham is the president of the League of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands.
We welcome and encourage readers to keep the dialogue going by responding to Source commentary. Letters should be e-mailed with name and place of residence to source@viaccess.net.
Publisher's note : Like the St. Thomas Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
OMNIBUS BILL WOULD USURP EXECUTIVE POWERS
Following is a statement of the League of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands on the Omnibus Bill for Fiscal Year 2003:
For all the very many years that the League of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands has reviewed and commented on the proposed executive branch budgets and the more often than not accompanying Omnibus Bill wish lists, this year may well be the most difficult.
The Omnibus Bill reflects the thinking and actions of a Legislature which does not have a clear definition of its own role and its related powers. By proposing appropriations which by their nature establish policies, the senators infringe on the role and related powers of the executive branch.
To appropriate funds specifically for particular vendors or employees for services and contracts not included in the proposed executive budget for Fiscal Year 2003 is not the function of the Legislature. Furthermore, to suggest funding sources for these purposes already committed to the Fiscal Year 2003 executive budget appropriations is, at best, careless.
In the executive budget document for each fiscal year, funding is included to meet personal services for government employees. The League is startled to find included in the Omnibus Bill salaries for employees of non-profit, non-government organizations. Such precedent setting is frightening.
Included in the Omnibus Bill are 16 positions for professional staff at Juan F. Luis Hospital at a cost of approximately $1.5 million to be funded from the General Fund while the cost of the fringe benefits of at least $450,000 is not addressed. Again, this is not an executive proposal. Is the staffing of a hospital now a legislative function? Wasn't it the intent of policy and statute, to date, to grant the hospitals full autonomy? Isn't the legislative proposal to create and fund positions retrogressive? What realistic plans exist for true autonomy for the hospitals?
Who proposes such measures to a senator or senators? Are executive policies and procedures so ill-defined or so convoluted as to create the need for other avenues to solve administrative problems?
Adequate funding for the implementation of the plans to extend the jurisdiction of the Territorial Court has not been available for the last 10 years. Perhaps an appellate court would be beneficial to the territory, but where is the adequate funding for such a project? The Omnibus Bill seeks to use the Industrial Development Fund and the Insurance Guaranty Fund, but these funds are already committed in the proposed budget estimates and are essential to balancing the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget — essential, in fact, to the very operations of the V.I. government. Further, the League wonders how an appellate court is germane to industrial development or to the insurance guarantees to the people of the Virgin Islands?
When will the government of the Virgin Islands shelve its crisis-to-crisis management style? When will financial planning based on reality be the base for decision making, for the preparation of budget proposals from the executive branch and for the commitment of resources in the best interest of the whole community?
The Legislature, by its action in voting up the Omnibus Bill without regard for the revenue projections of the executive branch, has dumped the responsibility for fiscal integrity squarely in the lap of Government House. The league of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands urgently pleads for the judicious application of the veto power.
For all the very many years that the League of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands has reviewed and commented on the proposed executive branch budgets and the more often than not accompanying Omnibus Bill wish lists, this year may well be the most difficult.
The Omnibus Bill reflects the thinking and actions of a Legislature which does not have a clear definition of its own role and its related powers. By proposing appropriations which by their nature establish policies, the senators infringe on the role and related powers of the executive branch.
To appropriate funds specifically for particular vendors or employees for services and contracts not included in the proposed executive budget for Fiscal Year 2003 is not the function of the Legislature. Furthermore, to suggest funding sources for these purposes already committed to the Fiscal Year 2003 executive budget appropriations is, at best, careless.
In the executive budget document for each fiscal year, funding is included to meet personal services for government employees. The League is startled to find included in the Omnibus Bill salaries for employees of non-profit, non-government organizations. Such precedent setting is frightening.
Included in the Omnibus Bill are 16 positions for professional staff at Juan F. Luis Hospital at a cost of approximately $1.5 million to be funded from the General Fund while the cost of the fringe benefits of at least $450,000 is not addressed. Again, this is not an executive proposal. Is the staffing of a hospital now a legislative function? Wasn't it the intent of policy and statute, to date, to grant the hospitals full autonomy? Isn't the legislative proposal to create and fund positions retrogressive? What realistic plans exist for true autonomy for the hospitals?
Who proposes such measures to a senator or senators? Are executive policies and procedures so ill-defined or so convoluted as to create the need for other avenues to solve administrative problems?
Adequate funding for the implementation of the plans to extend the jurisdiction of the Territorial Court has not been available for the last 10 years. Perhaps an appellate court would be beneficial to the territory, but where is the adequate funding for such a project? The Omnibus Bill seeks to use the Industrial Development Fund and the Insurance Guaranty Fund, but these funds are already committed in the proposed budget estimates and are essential to balancing the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget — essential, in fact, to the very operations of the V.I. government. Further, the League wonders how an appellate court is germane to industrial development or to the insurance guarantees to the people of the Virgin Islands?
When will the government of the Virgin Islands shelve its crisis-to-crisis management style? When will financial planning based on reality be the base for decision making, for the preparation of budget proposals from the executive branch and for the commitment of resources in the best interest of the whole community?
The Legislature, by its action in voting up the Omnibus Bill without regard for the revenue projections of the executive branch, has dumped the responsibility for fiscal integrity squarely in the lap of Government House. The league of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands urgently pleads for the judicious application of the veto power.
Editor's note: Erva A. Denham is the president of the League of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands.
We welcome and encourage readers to keep the dialogue going by responding to Source commentary. Letters should be e-mailed with name and place of residence to source@viaccess.net.
Publisher's note : Like the St. Croix Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
