Water Islanders will be holding their first annual Holiday Bazaar starting at 12 noon, Saturday, Dec. 9 at the Honeymoon Beach pavilion.
There is still plenty of room for vendors, who will be charged a $5 fee to cover the cost of renting the Pavilion. Pandella said the vendors should plan to take the 11:15 a.m. ferry from Crown Bay Marina if they want help getting their wares to the pavilion. Water Islanders will meet that ferry to give assistance.
Ferry service from Crown Bay Marina to Water Island runs:
8 a.m.
11:15 a.m.
12:15 p.m.
2:15 p.m.
4:15 p.m
From Water Island service runs:
8:15 a.m.
11 a.m.
12 noon
2 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
5:30 p.m.
For more information go to Things to do section.
1ST ANNUAL HOLIDAY BAZAAR ON WATER ISLAND
Water Islanders will be holding their first annual Holiday Bazaar starting at 12 noon Saturday, Dec. 9 at the Honeymoon Beach pavilion.
Bazaar organizer Pamela Pandella said she expected artisans from Water Island, St. Thomas and even St. John to be displaying their arts and crafts.
Pandella said the idea was the result of bad weather during a flea market held recently.
"We had a lot of fun, but the turnout wasn't great," she said.
"We decided to do this close to Christmas so we could have crafts for decorations or for gift items," she said.
Among the arts and crafts will be carved calabash gourds, jewelry, t-shirts and Pandella's own painted aprons and bird house chimes.
Jean Ballew will be offering her macramed glass fish balls and shoppers will be able to purchase Paul Borghi t-shirts, Pandella said.
Along with the arts and crafts, baked goods will also be offered for sale to benefit the Water Island Carnival Committee.
"We had a float (in St. Thomas Carnival) for the first time last year," Pandella said.
Soda, liquor flavored coffee and hot dogs will be available, too.
There is still plenty of room for vendors, who will be charged a $5 fee to cover the cost of renting the Pavilion. Pandella said the vendors should plan to take the 11:15 a.m. ferry from Crown Bay Marina if they want help getting their wares to the pavilion. Water Islanders will meet that ferry to give assistance.
"Since the bazaar is on the beach, people may want to bring their bathing suits," Pandella added.
Ferry service from Crown Bay Marina to Water Island runs:
8 a.m.
11:15 a.m.
12:15 p.m.
2:15 p.m.
4:15 p.m
From Water Island service runs:
8:15 a.m.
11 a.m.
12 noon
2 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
5:30 p.m.
For more information or to reserve a space contact Pamela Pandella at 777-5368.
Bazaar organizer Pamela Pandella said she expected artisans from Water Island, St. Thomas and even St. John to be displaying their arts and crafts.
Pandella said the idea was the result of bad weather during a flea market held recently.
"We had a lot of fun, but the turnout wasn't great," she said.
"We decided to do this close to Christmas so we could have crafts for decorations or for gift items," she said.
Among the arts and crafts will be carved calabash gourds, jewelry, t-shirts and Pandella's own painted aprons and bird house chimes.
Jean Ballew will be offering her macramed glass fish balls and shoppers will be able to purchase Paul Borghi t-shirts, Pandella said.
Along with the arts and crafts, baked goods will also be offered for sale to benefit the Water Island Carnival Committee.
"We had a float (in St. Thomas Carnival) for the first time last year," Pandella said.
Soda, liquor flavored coffee and hot dogs will be available, too.
There is still plenty of room for vendors, who will be charged a $5 fee to cover the cost of renting the Pavilion. Pandella said the vendors should plan to take the 11:15 a.m. ferry from Crown Bay Marina if they want help getting their wares to the pavilion. Water Islanders will meet that ferry to give assistance.
"Since the bazaar is on the beach, people may want to bring their bathing suits," Pandella added.
Ferry service from Crown Bay Marina to Water Island runs:
8 a.m.
11:15 a.m.
12:15 p.m.
2:15 p.m.
4:15 p.m
From Water Island service runs:
8:15 a.m.
11 a.m.
12 noon
2 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
5:30 p.m.
For more information or to reserve a space contact Pamela Pandella at 777-5368.
HUNDREDS TURN OUT FOR YOUTH SOCCER TOURNEY
More than 300 participants, among them parents, coaches, players and family members, flocked to the University of the Virgin Islands Field on Friday for the three-day St. Thomas Youth Soccer Association's third annual Thanksgiving Soccer Tournament.
Youth soccer teams from as near as St. John and as far away as Antigua gathered for the three-day event that ended Sunday with the distribution of trophies and awards to the winning teams and second and third place finishers.
"The interscholastic competition was initiated three years ago to foster teamwork, leadership, and comradeship and a love for soccer," according to Stephen Brusch, president of the Association. "The tournament was a natural outgrowth of league play,' he noted.
St. Croix had the largest contingent of 110 that included six teams, coaches and chaperones. Antigua brought two teams in the under 13 and under 14 division consisting of 64 participants.
Anguilla was represented by 32 players, coaches and chaperones. Tortola had 40 participants. And Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico transported their contingent of 65 on a Coast Guard cutter. This was in addition to 120 players from St. Thomas and St. John who participated.
"It was a wonderful melting pot and an exciting sporting event," said John de Jongh Jr., President of the Lockhart Companies and the St. Thomas-St. John Chamber of Commerce. "I really applaud the members of the St. Thomas Youth Soccer Association for this undertaking, UVI for accommodating us all on their field, and the local businesses that provided food, water, snacks, and juices for all these people.
"Each year the participation level grows and this was handled very well."
Winners in their respective divisions were: Roosevelt Roads was first place finishers in the under 10 A division, followed by St. Croix Red second place, and St. Thomas Blue third. In the B division St. Thomas Maroon was first, St. Thomas White came in second, and St. Thomas Green third.
In the under 11 girls division St. Thomas Red and St. Thomas Blue tied for first place. In the under 11 boys division St. Thomas Blue came out on top, followed by a second place St. Croix team, and St. Thomas Red was third.
A St. John girls team took first place in the under 13 girls division followed by Anguilla and a St. Thomas team. In under 13 boys action St. Thomas Blue took first place, Anguilla was second, and St. Croix was third place finisher. In under 14 boys play St. Thomas was first, Antigua second and St. Croix third.
There were also two noncompetitive games with St. Thomas Women Soccer vs. a combined girls/young women of mixed ages from Tortola, St. Croix and St. John. One of those games was on Saturday evening in Lionel Roberts Stadium and the other was on Sunday afternoon at the UVI Field at the conclusion of the tournament. The girls/young women combined team won both games.
"A three-day tournament has never been attempted by our organization but the games went well, competition was good with an excellent demonstration of athleticism, skill, talent, and sportsmanship," said organizer Tanya Benjamin. "I can think of no other sport in the territory that crosses such a wide cross-section of people. Additionally, the impact it has on the young people here and those that traveled is amazing and all positive."
The final standings were as follows:
UNDER 7 (CO-ED)
St. Thomas Red won over the St. Thomas Blue team.
UNDER 10 BOYS – 2 DIVISIONS, A AND B
A division
Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico – 1st
St. Croix Red – 2nd
St. Thomas Blue – 3rd
B division (only St. Thomas)
St. Thomas maroon – 1st
St. Thomas white – 2nd
St. Thomas green – 3rd
UNDER 11 GIRLS
Tie: St. Thomas Red and St. Thomas Blue each won one game
UNDER 11 BOYS
St. Thomas Blue – 1st.
St. Croix – 2nd
St. Thomas Red – 3rd
UNDER 13 GIRLS
St. John – 1st
Anguilla – 2nd
St. Thomas – 3rd
UNDER 13 BOYS
St. Thomas Blue – 1st
Anguilla – 2nd
St. Croix – 3rd
UNDER 14 BOYS
St. Thomas – 1st
Antigua – 2nd
St. Croix – 3rd
Youth soccer teams from as near as St. John and as far away as Antigua gathered for the three-day event that ended Sunday with the distribution of trophies and awards to the winning teams and second and third place finishers.
"The interscholastic competition was initiated three years ago to foster teamwork, leadership, and comradeship and a love for soccer," according to Stephen Brusch, president of the Association. "The tournament was a natural outgrowth of league play,' he noted.
St. Croix had the largest contingent of 110 that included six teams, coaches and chaperones. Antigua brought two teams in the under 13 and under 14 division consisting of 64 participants.
Anguilla was represented by 32 players, coaches and chaperones. Tortola had 40 participants. And Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico transported their contingent of 65 on a Coast Guard cutter. This was in addition to 120 players from St. Thomas and St. John who participated.
"It was a wonderful melting pot and an exciting sporting event," said John de Jongh Jr., President of the Lockhart Companies and the St. Thomas-St. John Chamber of Commerce. "I really applaud the members of the St. Thomas Youth Soccer Association for this undertaking, UVI for accommodating us all on their field, and the local businesses that provided food, water, snacks, and juices for all these people.
"Each year the participation level grows and this was handled very well."
Winners in their respective divisions were: Roosevelt Roads was first place finishers in the under 10 A division, followed by St. Croix Red second place, and St. Thomas Blue third. In the B division St. Thomas Maroon was first, St. Thomas White came in second, and St. Thomas Green third.
In the under 11 girls division St. Thomas Red and St. Thomas Blue tied for first place. In the under 11 boys division St. Thomas Blue came out on top, followed by a second place St. Croix team, and St. Thomas Red was third.
A St. John girls team took first place in the under 13 girls division followed by Anguilla and a St. Thomas team. In under 13 boys action St. Thomas Blue took first place, Anguilla was second, and St. Croix was third place finisher. In under 14 boys play St. Thomas was first, Antigua second and St. Croix third.
There were also two noncompetitive games with St. Thomas Women Soccer vs. a combined girls/young women of mixed ages from Tortola, St. Croix and St. John. One of those games was on Saturday evening in Lionel Roberts Stadium and the other was on Sunday afternoon at the UVI Field at the conclusion of the tournament. The girls/young women combined team won both games.
"A three-day tournament has never been attempted by our organization but the games went well, competition was good with an excellent demonstration of athleticism, skill, talent, and sportsmanship," said organizer Tanya Benjamin. "I can think of no other sport in the territory that crosses such a wide cross-section of people. Additionally, the impact it has on the young people here and those that traveled is amazing and all positive."
The final standings were as follows:
UNDER 7 (CO-ED)
St. Thomas Red won over the St. Thomas Blue team.
UNDER 10 BOYS – 2 DIVISIONS, A AND B
A division
Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico – 1st
St. Croix Red – 2nd
St. Thomas Blue – 3rd
B division (only St. Thomas)
St. Thomas maroon – 1st
St. Thomas white – 2nd
St. Thomas green – 3rd
UNDER 11 GIRLS
Tie: St. Thomas Red and St. Thomas Blue each won one game
UNDER 11 BOYS
St. Thomas Blue – 1st.
St. Croix – 2nd
St. Thomas Red – 3rd
UNDER 13 GIRLS
St. John – 1st
Anguilla – 2nd
St. Thomas – 3rd
UNDER 13 BOYS
St. Thomas Blue – 1st
Anguilla – 2nd
St. Croix – 3rd
UNDER 14 BOYS
St. Thomas – 1st
Antigua – 2nd
St. Croix – 3rd
CABRET ISSUES TRO ON VOTE CERTIFICATION
Territorial Court Presiding Judge Maria Cabret Monday ordered the St. Thomas Board of Elections not to certify the final results of the 2000 general election until a hearing is held into a complaint brought by Sen. George Goodwin over how absentee ballots were counted.
Goodwin filed suit last week, suggesting that absentee ballots should not be counted because the majority contained no postmark to indicate whether they were mailed prior to Nov. 7, election day.
Cabret's order came in the form of the 10-day temporary restraining order Goodwin sought. Cabret then assigned the case to Territorial Court Judge Ishmael Meyers. Meyers has been off island and as of Monday evening had not set a date on the hearing.
In a five-page ruling, Cabret said the granting of a TRO allows the court to consider all arguments presented to it before making a decision.
"The public interest will not be served if election results are certified under a cloud of uncertainty," she wrote.
Because of the absentee ballots, Goodwin lost his Senate seat to a fellow Democrat, Sen. Lorraine Berry, who finished eighth in the general election but advanced to the seventh position after gaining more than 260 absentee votes.
Goodwin filed suit last week, suggesting that absentee ballots should not be counted because the majority contained no postmark to indicate whether they were mailed prior to Nov. 7, election day.
Cabret's order came in the form of the 10-day temporary restraining order Goodwin sought. Cabret then assigned the case to Territorial Court Judge Ishmael Meyers. Meyers has been off island and as of Monday evening had not set a date on the hearing.
In a five-page ruling, Cabret said the granting of a TRO allows the court to consider all arguments presented to it before making a decision.
"The public interest will not be served if election results are certified under a cloud of uncertainty," she wrote.
Because of the absentee ballots, Goodwin lost his Senate seat to a fellow Democrat, Sen. Lorraine Berry, who finished eighth in the general election but advanced to the seventh position after gaining more than 260 absentee votes.
CABRET ISSUES TRO ON STT VOTE CERTIFICATION
Territorial Court Presiding Judge Maria Cabret Monday ordered the St. Thomas Board of Elections not to certify the final results of the 2000 general election until a hearing is held into a complaint brought by Sen. George Goodwin over how absentee ballots were counted.
Goodwin filed suit last week, suggesting that absentee ballots should not be counted because the majority contained no postmark to indicate whether they were mailed prior to Nov. 7, election day.
Cabret's order came in the form of the 10-day temporary restraining order Goodwin sought. Cabret then assigned the case to Territorial Court Judge Ishmael Meyers. Meyers has been off island and as of Monday evening had not set a date on the hearing.
In a five-page ruling, Cabret said the granting of a TRO allows the court to consider all arguments presented to it before making a decision.
"The public interest will not be served if election results are certified under a cloud of uncertainty," she wrote.
Because of the absentee ballots, Goodwin lost his Senate seat to a fellow Democrat, Sen. Lorraine Berry, who finished eighth in the general election but advanced to the seventh position after gaining more than 260 absentee votes.
Goodwin filed suit last week, suggesting that absentee ballots should not be counted because the majority contained no postmark to indicate whether they were mailed prior to Nov. 7, election day.
Cabret's order came in the form of the 10-day temporary restraining order Goodwin sought. Cabret then assigned the case to Territorial Court Judge Ishmael Meyers. Meyers has been off island and as of Monday evening had not set a date on the hearing.
In a five-page ruling, Cabret said the granting of a TRO allows the court to consider all arguments presented to it before making a decision.
"The public interest will not be served if election results are certified under a cloud of uncertainty," she wrote.
Because of the absentee ballots, Goodwin lost his Senate seat to a fellow Democrat, Sen. Lorraine Berry, who finished eighth in the general election but advanced to the seventh position after gaining more than 260 absentee votes.
CABRET ISSUES TRO ON VOTE CERTIFICATION
Territorial Court Presiding Judge Maria Cabret Monday ordered the St. Thomas Board of Elections not to certify the final results of the 2000 general election until a hearing is held into a complaint brought by Sen. George Goodwin over how absentee ballots were counted.
Goodwin filed suit last week, suggesting that absentee ballots should not be counted because the majority contained no postmark to indicate whether they were mailed prior to Nov. 7, election day.
Cabret's order came in the form of the 10-day temporary restraining order Goodwin sought. Cabret then assigned the case to Territorial Court Judge Ishmael Meyers. Meyers has been off island and as of Monday evening had not set a date on the hearing.
In a five-page ruling, Cabret said the granting of a TRO allows the court to consider all arguments presented to it before making a decision.
"The public interest will not be served if election results are certified under a cloud of uncertainty," she wrote.
Because of the absentee ballots, Goodwin lost his Senate seat to a fellow Democrat, Sen. Lorraine Berry, who finished eighth in the general election but advanced to the seventh position after gaining more than 260 absentee votes.
Goodwin filed suit last week, suggesting that absentee ballots should not be counted because the majority contained no postmark to indicate whether they were mailed prior to Nov. 7, election day.
Cabret's order came in the form of the 10-day temporary restraining order Goodwin sought. Cabret then assigned the case to Territorial Court Judge Ishmael Meyers. Meyers has been off island and as of Monday evening had not set a date on the hearing.
In a five-page ruling, Cabret said the granting of a TRO allows the court to consider all arguments presented to it before making a decision.
"The public interest will not be served if election results are certified under a cloud of uncertainty," she wrote.
Because of the absentee ballots, Goodwin lost his Senate seat to a fellow Democrat, Sen. Lorraine Berry, who finished eighth in the general election but advanced to the seventh position after gaining more than 260 absentee votes.
MORE LABOR VIOLATION CHARGES LEVELED AT ICC
The two dozen St. Croix Cable TV employees locked out of their jobs by Innovative Communication Corp. a week ago took up positions outside ICC’s brand new building Monday to protest the company’s order that they join the United Steelworkers union.
The workers were refused entry to ICC’s building last Tuesday because they are members of the Our Virgin Islands Labor Union and not of the USW, which has a contract with the company as the bargaining unit for employees.
Company and USW officials, who did not return calls Monday, have said the contract calls for a "closed shop," which precludes he existence of another union. They say the smaller Our Virgin Islands union should be absorbed by the larger USW because its members have no separate identity as a bargaining unit.
"That’s nonsense," said Terrence Nelson, OVILU president. "The government deals with 22 unions. Hovensa has more than one. It’s not uncommon."
Last month, Nelson added, a National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge ruled that ICC should bargain with OVILU, as well as transfer workers' benefits to its members, and a District Court judge concurred. The NLRB ruling is pending approval by NLRB directors.
In fact, said attorney Lee Rohn, whose law firm represents OVILU, the NLRB administrative law judge blasted ICC for past "unfair labor practices" practically identical to the current dispute. She asserted that the company was in violation of a District Court restraining order directing it not to interfere with the new union.
Rohn said OVILU has again filed unfair labor practice charges against ICC for the recent lockout.
In a unanimous vote in September 1999, the 24 St. Croix Cable TV employees, who hold installation, technical, maintenance, clerical and customer positions, chose to join OVILU rather than the USW. OVILU was certified as a bargaining unit by the National Labor Relations Board the previous May.
The problem, however, is that ICC, owned by Jeffrey Prosser, also owns the V.I. Telephone Company, St. Croix Cable TV, St. Thomas-St. John Cable TV, Vitelcellular and Vitelcom, and has consolidated operations. According to an ICC statement last week, employees of Vitelco’s sister companies were cross-trained and "are now part of the Vitelco family" that has been represented by the United Steelworkers Union for 27 years.
It is because of the cross-training that the company argues that the 24 St. Croix Cable workers should become part of the USW.
But NLRB Administrative Law Judge C. Richard Miserendino’s ruling is clear: The St. Croix Cable bargaining unit’s employees are not an "accretion" to the Vitelco bargaining unit, particularly since OVILU was created before a new contract was signed between ICC and the USW.
"A finding of accretion would not be appropriate because an accretion assumes that the functions and classifications of the transferred employees will remain essentially unchanged," the judge said in his October ruling. "Here, the evidence shows that the merger/consolidation of job functions will create a new job in order to allow the employees of all the ICC subsidiaries to perform telephone, cable, cellular … functions."
That, he said, would effectively change the functions and duties of the St. Croix Cable workers.
Nelson agreed. He said that with the consolidation new jobs have been created, illustrating the differences between subsidiary employees before the ICC-USW contract was signed.
Miserendino said that a year ago, ICC violated a variety of national labor relations laws by, among other things, failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with OVILU, withholding dues on behalf of the USW from the paychecks of OVILU members without their consent; by telling them that they were required to sign USW dues check-off forms, and by giving the dues to the USW, "thereby unlawfully assisting and supporting the USW."
"Having found that (ICC) has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist" and to take action to comply with the law, Miserendino ruled.
Despite that position, attorney Rohn alleged that ICC is not only breaking the law again, but in violation of both the NLRB and District Court rulings. ICC, she said "continues to do anything they want."
Nelson, meanwhile, said the USW is trying to protect its relationship with ICC and Vitelco. He called the big union a mainland-based organization that reaps the benefits of local dues paid by local members.
"They claim ICC to be their turf," Nelson said. "Vitelco has been their turf, not St. Croix Cable TV. The turf of ICC has yet to be determined through the electoral process."
The workers were refused entry to ICC’s building last Tuesday because they are members of the Our Virgin Islands Labor Union and not of the USW, which has a contract with the company as the bargaining unit for employees.
Company and USW officials, who did not return calls Monday, have said the contract calls for a "closed shop," which precludes he existence of another union. They say the smaller Our Virgin Islands union should be absorbed by the larger USW because its members have no separate identity as a bargaining unit.
"That’s nonsense," said Terrence Nelson, OVILU president. "The government deals with 22 unions. Hovensa has more than one. It’s not uncommon."
Last month, Nelson added, a National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge ruled that ICC should bargain with OVILU, as well as transfer workers' benefits to its members, and a District Court judge concurred. The NLRB ruling is pending approval by NLRB directors.
In fact, said attorney Lee Rohn, whose law firm represents OVILU, the NLRB administrative law judge blasted ICC for past "unfair labor practices" practically identical to the current dispute. She asserted that the company was in violation of a District Court restraining order directing it not to interfere with the new union.
Rohn said OVILU has again filed unfair labor practice charges against ICC for the recent lockout.
In a unanimous vote in September 1999, the 24 St. Croix Cable TV employees, who hold installation, technical, maintenance, clerical and customer positions, chose to join OVILU rather than the USW. OVILU was certified as a bargaining unit by the National Labor Relations Board the previous May.
The problem, however, is that ICC, owned by Jeffrey Prosser, also owns the V.I. Telephone Company, St. Croix Cable TV, St. Thomas-St. John Cable TV, Vitelcellular and Vitelcom, and has consolidated operations. According to an ICC statement last week, employees of Vitelco’s sister companies were cross-trained and "are now part of the Vitelco family" that has been represented by the United Steelworkers Union for 27 years.
It is because of the cross-training that the company argues that the 24 St. Croix Cable workers should become part of the USW.
But NLRB Administrative Law Judge C. Richard Miserendino’s ruling is clear: The St. Croix Cable bargaining unit’s employees are not an "accretion" to the Vitelco bargaining unit, particularly since OVILU was created before a new contract was signed between ICC and the USW.
"A finding of accretion would not be appropriate because an accretion assumes that the functions and classifications of the transferred employees will remain essentially unchanged," the judge said in his October ruling. "Here, the evidence shows that the merger/consolidation of job functions will create a new job in order to allow the employees of all the ICC subsidiaries to perform telephone, cable, cellular … functions."
That, he said, would effectively change the functions and duties of the St. Croix Cable workers.
Nelson agreed. He said that with the consolidation new jobs have been created, illustrating the differences between subsidiary employees before the ICC-USW contract was signed.
Miserendino said that a year ago, ICC violated a variety of national labor relations laws by, among other things, failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with OVILU, withholding dues on behalf of the USW from the paychecks of OVILU members without their consent; by telling them that they were required to sign USW dues check-off forms, and by giving the dues to the USW, "thereby unlawfully assisting and supporting the USW."
"Having found that (ICC) has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist" and to take action to comply with the law, Miserendino ruled.
Despite that position, attorney Rohn alleged that ICC is not only breaking the law again, but in violation of both the NLRB and District Court rulings. ICC, she said "continues to do anything they want."
Nelson, meanwhile, said the USW is trying to protect its relationship with ICC and Vitelco. He called the big union a mainland-based organization that reaps the benefits of local dues paid by local members.
"They claim ICC to be their turf," Nelson said. "Vitelco has been their turf, not St. Croix Cable TV. The turf of ICC has yet to be determined through the electoral process."
SEN. RICHARDS LEADS BUT 56 VOTES CHALLENGED
Although a recount of absentee ballots on Monday resulted in Raymond "Usie" Richards picking up 10 votes in his quest for St. Croix’s seventh Senate seat, Sen. Vargrave Richards continued to hold a slim 15-vote lead.
But an outright victory for Sen. Richards will remain unclear until the V.I. attorney general renders a decision on 56 ballots that Usie Richards challenged. Out of those 56, at least 18 could go to Usie Richards.
St. Croix had a total of 451 absentee ballots. The challenge is based on "spoiled" ballots where the voter marked the political party symbol on the ballot card but then chose names of candidates not in that party. Usie Richards, who also sits on the St. Croix District Board of Elections, said federal and state rulings have determined that elections officials must recognize a voter’s intent in choosing the candidates and count the votes cast.
Considering that there is no legal guideline on the books in the territory, Usie Richards requested that the St. Croix Board of Elections seek a legal opinion from the V.I. attorney general on what constitutes a spoiled ballot.
Usie Richards said he was pleased with the board’s decision. He added that by pressing for a written opinion on the issue of voter intent, a legal benchmark will be set in the territory.
"I appreciate the board’s efforts," Usie Richards said. "This will set some precedent in the absence of some specific law."
In the Nov. 7 general election, Usie Richards tied with his cousin, Sen. Richards, with 3,936 votes apiece for the seventh St. Croix Senate seat. After the board counted absentee ballots on Nov. 18, Sen. Richards came away with a 25-vote victory.
In Monday’s recount, Sen. Richards got 137 votes; Usie Richards received 122.
On Tuesday the St. Croix board will take up Usie Richards’ request that it re-tabulate all the votes cast at polling places during the general election. He called for the re-tabulation of electronic cartridges used in voting machines to determine a reason for the difference between the order of the candidates on the night of the general election and the poll-by-poll printouts.
At least two of the electronic voting machine cartridges couldn’t be read by the accompanying computer software so a printout was made of the results. Those were then entered by hand into a computer.
Usie Richards requested, and was granted, a re-tabulation because of the possibility that errors were introduced during the manual entering of the information.
But an outright victory for Sen. Richards will remain unclear until the V.I. attorney general renders a decision on 56 ballots that Usie Richards challenged. Out of those 56, at least 18 could go to Usie Richards.
St. Croix had a total of 451 absentee ballots. The challenge is based on "spoiled" ballots where the voter marked the political party symbol on the ballot card but then chose names of candidates not in that party. Usie Richards, who also sits on the St. Croix District Board of Elections, said federal and state rulings have determined that elections officials must recognize a voter’s intent in choosing the candidates and count the votes cast.
Considering that there is no legal guideline on the books in the territory, Usie Richards requested that the St. Croix Board of Elections seek a legal opinion from the V.I. attorney general on what constitutes a spoiled ballot.
Usie Richards said he was pleased with the board’s decision. He added that by pressing for a written opinion on the issue of voter intent, a legal benchmark will be set in the territory.
"I appreciate the board’s efforts," Usie Richards said. "This will set some precedent in the absence of some specific law."
In the Nov. 7 general election, Usie Richards tied with his cousin, Sen. Richards, with 3,936 votes apiece for the seventh St. Croix Senate seat. After the board counted absentee ballots on Nov. 18, Sen. Richards came away with a 25-vote victory.
In Monday’s recount, Sen. Richards got 137 votes; Usie Richards received 122.
On Tuesday the St. Croix board will take up Usie Richards’ request that it re-tabulate all the votes cast at polling places during the general election. He called for the re-tabulation of electronic cartridges used in voting machines to determine a reason for the difference between the order of the candidates on the night of the general election and the poll-by-poll printouts.
At least two of the electronic voting machine cartridges couldn’t be read by the accompanying computer software so a printout was made of the results. Those were then entered by hand into a computer.
Usie Richards requested, and was granted, a re-tabulation because of the possibility that errors were introduced during the manual entering of the information.
STANDING UP FOR RIGHT TO SELL AT DRAKE'S SEAT
Dear Source:
I am a licensed vendor currently located at Drake's Seat. As you know, the vendors at Drake's Seat have recently come under fire. The so-called owners of the property have claimed that the easement granting the government rights to that location excluded the right of the government to use it for commercial purposes.
The government has permitted me to sell my wares at that location since 1981. The owners argue that this constitutes a commercial purpose in violation of the terms and conditions of the easement. The owners have demanded that the government cease to allow vendors to sell at that location. The government issued a 30-day notice to vacate to me effective last June 9. That date has been extended by the governor on two occasions. On Aug. 9, the extension was extended sine die [until further notice]. The owners have revoked the easement as a result of the government's failure to meet their demands.
This is not the first time that the government has attempted to remove me. The first attempt was enjoined by District Court Judge David O'Brien on July 25, 1985. Said injunction remains in full force and effect.
It appears that in an opinion letter to Housing, Parks and Recreation Commissioner Ira Hobson, dated April 10, 2000, Attorney General Iver Stridiron opined "that the itinerant vendors have usurped the parking area and private property without permission or legal authority." Further, that "all the vendors claim to be operating their businesses by virtue of business licenses issued by the Department of Licensing and Consumer Affairs."
The opinion is fatally flawed. On Oct.1, 1937, Arthur S. Fairchild, as owner of the property described as Louisenhoj and Magens Bay Estate, licensed and authorized the Municipality of St. Thomas and St. John and its duly authorized agents and representatives to enter and go upon the said property at all times during the construction of road and highway improvements, and further, released and forever discharged the municipality of and from all and all manner of actions, causes of actions, suits, damages, claims and demands in law or equity which against the said municipality that he had or may have, or which his heirs, executors or administrators can have or may have, or by reason of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever relating to the construction of road and highway improvements as outlined above. He clearly stated his intention in an addendum annexed thereto addressed to the superintendent of Public Works by stating, "I am granting this license with the definite understanding that the term ‘duly authorized agents and representatives' refers to the Public Works Department in St. Thomas and that all roads and highway improvements to be effected under this license will be carried out under the general supervision of that Department."
The license does not prohibit the commercial use of the location. It does authorize the agents of Public works to make highway improvements without restriction.
In reliance of these representations, Public Works developed the road, parking area and lookout now known as Drake's Seat, and its duly authorized agents granted me the right to sell my wares from that location.
This right was initially granted to me in 1981 by then-Chief of Police David Contant as apparent agent of Public Works. This right continued to be granted and recognized by subsequent police chiefs until 1985. On Feb. 16, 1985, the Department of Public Safety, as successor in interest to, and apparent authorized agent of, the Department of Public Works, granted me a Vendors Location Permit to sell "jewelry, T- shirts, music boxes and hand-made items." The location contained in that permit specified "across from Drake's Seat, on the Outlook, over the wall, on dirt and next to T. Polack, in middle area (selling from table)" [sic].
On Feb. 16, 1993, the Department of Housing, Parks and Recreation, via a memorandum of agreement, acting on behalf of the government, and as apparent agent of Public Works, permitted me to sell clothing in the area indicated on the site plan of Drake's Seat in consideration of $900 per year. In reliance upon the apparent authority of the government to enter into this agreement, I have paid the sums as agreed upon and sold my wares across from Drake's Seat, on the outlook, over the wall, on the dirt and next to T. Polack in the middle area, selling from a table.
I have fully complied with all terms and conditions imposed by the apparent agents of the Department of Public Works. Now, in spite of my compliance, the government states that I am trespassing.
It is obvious that the controversy has been initiated by the heirs of Mr. Fairchild in furtherance of their personal agenda. The controversy has been aggravated by the failure of the government to protect its interests in Drake's Seat. The government has not taken action to prohibit the heirs of Mr. Fairchild to alter the license as granted by him, the original licensor. Nor has the government sought to protect those individuals authorized by it to be at that location, pursuant to its understanding as to what it was authorized to do, in good faith. I am one of those individuals. I stand to lose my livelihood.
It appears that big business has once again raised its ugly head at the expense of the little man. The current owners have stated that the value of the land is depressed because of the diminution of the beauty of the view from Drake's Seat. The decreased value can be directly attributed to the vendors' presence. In an effort to increase the value of the land, they now, after 19 years, claim that the government is in violation of the license. The governor in response formulated a task force and directed his appointees to do their research.
I understand that the task force is composed of various cabinet members. The credibility of their findings is suspect. It is made up of those individuals that sleep with the interests of big business. One member, License and Consumer Affairs Commissioner Andrew Rutnik, has emerged as its spokesperson. Drake's Seat is not and has never been under the jurisdiction of the Department of Licensing and Consumer affairs. However, Commissioner Rutnik has offered a solution. His solution amounts to an ultimatum.
He has stated that the vendors at Drake's Seat must move by Nov. 30. In its benevolence, the task force has found an alternative location after due deliberation and an extensive search. The government will allocate the area opposite the Lucinda Millin Home in Long Bay as a relocation site. After Nov. 30, the government will no longer protect the Drake's Seat vendors from the efforts of the owners to remove them, thereby subjecting the vendors to arrest for trespassing.
Relocate or be subject to arrest. In arriving at this decision, the task force never consulted with the Drake's Seat Vendors Association or our attorney.
Mr. Rutnik stated that the Long Bay area will be as economically beneficial to the vendors as Drake's Seat because of the high volume of tourists that pass the area en route to downtown, as well as those returning to their respective ships. The volume of tourists in this category is vapid compared to the volume of people that visit Drake's Seat. Tourists visit Drake's Seat who have paid for tours. Tourists walk to and from town for one of two reasons. Either they want the exercise or they are spendthrifts. The ultimatum given by the task force is unacceptable.
The attorney general's opinion letter of April 10 does not mention the license granted to the Department of Public Works by Mr. Fairchild. It was drafted intending to achieve and justify a predetermined result. The letter does not acknowledge the injunction of Judge O'Brien. Any attempt by the government to remove the vendors without due process will be an act in flagrant violation of the court's order and subject the government to contempt proceedings. The failure of the opin ion letter to address this issue is further proof of the determination of the members of the task force to advance the interests of big business at the expense of the little man.
I am writing this letter to inform the public of the issues surrounding Drake's Seat. My solution is to keep the status quo. Toward that end, my government should fight to retain the rights given to it by Mr. Fairchild and in the process protect me and my right to sell my wares at Drake's Seat. I must believe that my government would not exercise rights that it did not possess.
Specifically, if the government did not have the right to allow vendors to sell at Drake's Seat, why did it allow me to sell my wares at that location for 19 years? I am the victim. I have done no wrong. I should not be forced to move.
Evaristo Rios Jr.
St. Thomas
I am a licensed vendor currently located at Drake's Seat. As you know, the vendors at Drake's Seat have recently come under fire. The so-called owners of the property have claimed that the easement granting the government rights to that location excluded the right of the government to use it for commercial purposes.
The government has permitted me to sell my wares at that location since 1981. The owners argue that this constitutes a commercial purpose in violation of the terms and conditions of the easement. The owners have demanded that the government cease to allow vendors to sell at that location. The government issued a 30-day notice to vacate to me effective last June 9. That date has been extended by the governor on two occasions. On Aug. 9, the extension was extended sine die [until further notice]. The owners have revoked the easement as a result of the government's failure to meet their demands.
This is not the first time that the government has attempted to remove me. The first attempt was enjoined by District Court Judge David O'Brien on July 25, 1985. Said injunction remains in full force and effect.
It appears that in an opinion letter to Housing, Parks and Recreation Commissioner Ira Hobson, dated April 10, 2000, Attorney General Iver Stridiron opined "that the itinerant vendors have usurped the parking area and private property without permission or legal authority." Further, that "all the vendors claim to be operating their businesses by virtue of business licenses issued by the Department of Licensing and Consumer Affairs."
The opinion is fatally flawed. On Oct.1, 1937, Arthur S. Fairchild, as owner of the property described as Louisenhoj and Magens Bay Estate, licensed and authorized the Municipality of St. Thomas and St. John and its duly authorized agents and representatives to enter and go upon the said property at all times during the construction of road and highway improvements, and further, released and forever discharged the municipality of and from all and all manner of actions, causes of actions, suits, damages, claims and demands in law or equity which against the said municipality that he had or may have, or which his heirs, executors or administrators can have or may have, or by reason of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever relating to the construction of road and highway improvements as outlined above. He clearly stated his intention in an addendum annexed thereto addressed to the superintendent of Public Works by stating, "I am granting this license with the definite understanding that the term ‘duly authorized agents and representatives' refers to the Public Works Department in St. Thomas and that all roads and highway improvements to be effected under this license will be carried out under the general supervision of that Department."
The license does not prohibit the commercial use of the location. It does authorize the agents of Public works to make highway improvements without restriction.
In reliance of these representations, Public Works developed the road, parking area and lookout now known as Drake's Seat, and its duly authorized agents granted me the right to sell my wares from that location.
This right was initially granted to me in 1981 by then-Chief of Police David Contant as apparent agent of Public Works. This right continued to be granted and recognized by subsequent police chiefs until 1985. On Feb. 16, 1985, the Department of Public Safety, as successor in interest to, and apparent authorized agent of, the Department of Public Works, granted me a Vendors Location Permit to sell "jewelry, T- shirts, music boxes and hand-made items." The location contained in that permit specified "across from Drake's Seat, on the Outlook, over the wall, on dirt and next to T. Polack, in middle area (selling from table)" [sic].
On Feb. 16, 1993, the Department of Housing, Parks and Recreation, via a memorandum of agreement, acting on behalf of the government, and as apparent agent of Public Works, permitted me to sell clothing in the area indicated on the site plan of Drake's Seat in consideration of $900 per year. In reliance upon the apparent authority of the government to enter into this agreement, I have paid the sums as agreed upon and sold my wares across from Drake's Seat, on the outlook, over the wall, on the dirt and next to T. Polack in the middle area, selling from a table.
I have fully complied with all terms and conditions imposed by the apparent agents of the Department of Public Works. Now, in spite of my compliance, the government states that I am trespassing.
It is obvious that the controversy has been initiated by the heirs of Mr. Fairchild in furtherance of their personal agenda. The controversy has been aggravated by the failure of the government to protect its interests in Drake's Seat. The government has not taken action to prohibit the heirs of Mr. Fairchild to alter the license as granted by him, the original licensor. Nor has the government sought to protect those individuals authorized by it to be at that location, pursuant to its understanding as to what it was authorized to do, in good faith. I am one of those individuals. I stand to lose my livelihood.
It appears that big business has once again raised its ugly head at the expense of the little man. The current owners have stated that the value of the land is depressed because of the diminution of the beauty of the view from Drake's Seat. The decreased value can be directly attributed to the vendors' presence. In an effort to increase the value of the land, they now, after 19 years, claim that the government is in violation of the license. The governor in response formulated a task force and directed his appointees to do their research.
I understand that the task force is composed of various cabinet members. The credibility of their findings is suspect. It is made up of those individuals that sleep with the interests of big business. One member, License and Consumer Affairs Commissioner Andrew Rutnik, has emerged as its spokesperson. Drake's Seat is not and has never been under the jurisdiction of the Department of Licensing and Consumer affairs. However, Commissioner Rutnik has offered a solution. His solution amounts to an ultimatum.
He has stated that the vendors at Drake's Seat must move by Nov. 30. In its benevolence, the task force has found an alternative location after due deliberation and an extensive search. The government will allocate the area opposite the Lucinda Millin Home in Long Bay as a relocation site. After Nov. 30, the government will no longer protect the Drake's Seat vendors from the efforts of the owners to remove them, thereby subjecting the vendors to arrest for trespassing.
Relocate or be subject to arrest. In arriving at this decision, the task force never consulted with the Drake's Seat Vendors Association or our attorney.
Mr. Rutnik stated that the Long Bay area will be as economically beneficial to the vendors as Drake's Seat because of the high volume of tourists that pass the area en route to downtown, as well as those returning to their respective ships. The volume of tourists in this category is vapid compared to the volume of people that visit Drake's Seat. Tourists visit Drake's Seat who have paid for tours. Tourists walk to and from town for one of two reasons. Either they want the exercise or they are spendthrifts. The ultimatum given by the task force is unacceptable.
The attorney general's opinion letter of April 10 does not mention the license granted to the Department of Public Works by Mr. Fairchild. It was drafted intending to achieve and justify a predetermined result. The letter does not acknowledge the injunction of Judge O'Brien. Any attempt by the government to remove the vendors without due process will be an act in flagrant violation of the court's order and subject the government to contempt proceedings. The failure of the opin ion letter to address this issue is further proof of the determination of the members of the task force to advance the interests of big business at the expense of the little man.
I am writing this letter to inform the public of the issues surrounding Drake's Seat. My solution is to keep the status quo. Toward that end, my government should fight to retain the rights given to it by Mr. Fairchild and in the process protect me and my right to sell my wares at Drake's Seat. I must believe that my government would not exercise rights that it did not possess.
Specifically, if the government did not have the right to allow vendors to sell at Drake's Seat, why did it allow me to sell my wares at that location for 19 years? I am the victim. I have done no wrong. I should not be forced to move.
Evaristo Rios Jr.
St. Thomas
SOMETHING TO BE THANKFUL FOR: THE RULE OF LAW
This past weekend as we celebrated the Thanksgiving holiday, our nation's attention was focused on the momentous events relating to the selection of our next president. With the stakes so high, it is not surprising that rhetoric on all sides has become heated. Some of it, unfortunately, has taken the form of virulent attacks upon lawyers and our justice system, which have been called upon to help resolve these critical issues and disputes.
Rather than attacking the justice system, we should be thankful that we have a system of government in which disputes can be resolved in courthouses, not in the streets. It is our nation's long-standing tradition that when the political branches of government are unable to resolve their differences, these matters are thrust upon our courts.
Interpretation of often-conflicting statutory provisions and regulatory standards is the daily work of courts in the Virgin Islands and throughout our great country. Our legal adversarial system — like our free-enterprise system, our democratic electoral system and our "marketplace of ideas" — provides a cauldron for the resolution of competing and conflicting views which characterize our American democracy.
Rather than resorting to name-calling and slurs against lawyers and our courts, we should remember their role in ensuring that the Rule of Law is honored. Our system of government, founded on the Rule of Law, is the envy of the world. It is often complicated and messy, but it works. Let's allow the system to continue to do its job, and give thanks for the blessings of our democracy.
Rather than attacking the justice system, we should be thankful that we have a system of government in which disputes can be resolved in courthouses, not in the streets. It is our nation's long-standing tradition that when the political branches of government are unable to resolve their differences, these matters are thrust upon our courts.
Interpretation of often-conflicting statutory provisions and regulatory standards is the daily work of courts in the Virgin Islands and throughout our great country. Our legal adversarial system — like our free-enterprise system, our democratic electoral system and our "marketplace of ideas" — provides a cauldron for the resolution of competing and conflicting views which characterize our American democracy.
Rather than resorting to name-calling and slurs against lawyers and our courts, we should remember their role in ensuring that the Rule of Law is honored. Our system of government, founded on the Rule of Law, is the envy of the world. It is often complicated and messy, but it works. Let's allow the system to continue to do its job, and give thanks for the blessings of our democracy.
Editor's note: Tom Bolt is an attorney in private practice on St. Thomas.
