When the V.I. senators voted 9-3 to deny a request by the governor to extend a permit for the Summer’s End Group marina development in Coral Bay, St. John on Aug. 28, it showed their intention to follow the laws established under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

For those who have not followed the events leading to the dramatic Aug. 28 Senate hearing and follow-up vote, here’s a brief rundown of the events leading to the decision that is bringing the project to a halt, at least for a while.  Following this background, the Source will present some possibilities regarding the future of marina projects in Coral Bay, along with a final note.   Events Leading up to the Aug. 28, 2025, Senate Vote In 2014, the Summer’s End Group acquired permits from the St. John Committee of Coastal Zone Management to build a marina and upland development in Coral Bay, St John.

The project faced numerous challenges filed in territorial and federal courts until December 2020. That’s when the Senate approved a bill (at Gov. Albert Bryan Jr.’s request) to ratify the controversial CZM permits so that they became law and the project could move forward. But the project was still doomed to delays. In addition to acquiring a Coastal Zone Management permit from the territory, the developers were also required to obtain approval from numerous federal agencies, leading to a final permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency. In spite of the developers’ efforts to comply with federal permit requirements (and their optimistic statements that it was coming “in the next quarter”), the Summer’s End Group has not received its permit from the Army Corps. Why Haven’t the Developers Received their Army Corps Permit? Proponents of the marina project (including SEG’s attorneys, former Louisiana Congressman Garret Graves, and Gov. Bryan) attribute delays in acquiring their permits to federal red tape and the interference by those who don’t want to see progress in the community. Opponents of the project (including Save Coral Bay president David Silverman) and the Environmental Protection Agency have cited reasons including a flawed permit approval process in the beginning and the project’s potentially harmful effects on the environment. The Senate’s Aug. 28 hearing determined these facts: The Summer’s End Group received its revised CZM permit in 2020 through legislation, but that permit expired in 2021 and is now null and void. CZM law states, “Any development or construction approved by a coastal zone permit shall be commenced within 12 months from the date such permit is issued. Failure to commence development or construction within such period shall cause the permit to lapse and render it null and void unless an extension is granted by the Committee of the Commission or the Commissioner.” To date, the Summer’s End Group has not begun construction and has not gone back to the St. John Committee of Coastal Zone Management or the commissioner to request a permit extension. Why didn’t the Summer’s End Group do either of these things? When senators asked SEG Managing Member Chaliese Summers to explain, she said their legal advisers told them it was unnecessary. She offered further explanations when the question was repeated several times at the Aug. 28 hearing.

One explanation was that the developers were prohibited from breaking ground until they had obtained their Army Corps permit, which they did not yet have. (Two of the three senators who voted Thursday in favor of the governor’s bill to grant the extension cited this as their reason for doing so.) A second explanation was that the Summer’s End Group believed the countdown for their CZM permits’ one-year expiration didn’t begin until they had all of their permits in place. A third was that the developers had completed demolition of hurricane-damaged buildings on property they leased, and though this wasn’t technically “construction” (which was prohibited until their Army Corps permit was granted), it was a form of development. Additionally, SEG had been working steadily with federal agencies to attain their permits. Nine of the 12 senators who voted to deny the permit extension found these explanations unsatisfactory. They heard testimony that two other marina projects (Compass Point and Yacht Haven Grande on St. Thomas) had consistently filed for extensions of their permits from CZM when their Army Corps permits were delayed. After Coastal Zone Management Commissioner May Adams Cornwall read the laws regarding permits during her testimony, several senators denounced the governor’s attempt to bypass local CZM law (for a second time) by enacting special legislation to extend the permit to a favored project.

Many of the senators said they supported a marina development on St. John and saw much to like about the project. But they couldn’t disrespect CZM’s jurisdiction and override their decision in this matter. So What Comes Next? How the Summer’s End Group will respond to this latest setback is unknown. The Source reached out on Friday morning to Chaliese Summers for comments but has not received a response as we go to press Sunday night. No doubt the developers will need some time to meet with their attorneys, investors and consultants before issuing a statement. This project has been in development since 2012 when it began as the St. John Marina spearheaded by former V.I. Sen. Robert O’Connor Jr. Clearly, there’s a lot at stake: The Summer’s End Group has invested $11 million so far and claims to have $130 million in construction financing ready to go, according to their testimony at the Senate hearing on Aug. 28. Adams Cornwall, who heads up the territory-wide CZM Commission, told the Source she would provide comments after the commission meets this coming week. But according to Kurt Marsh Jr., a member of the St. John Committee of Coastal Zone Management, the current situation is straightforward. “Summer’s End Group would have to send a letter to us requesting an extension, but the regulations are very clear: They can apply for an extension, but the committee may not be as open to them now especially as the permit has expired. That’s my personal opinion.” Marsh believes Summer’s End Group should start over with a new permit application to CZM. “We don’t know which of their leases are legitimate. Because of major modifications from 2014 to now, we have no idea what the project really looks like. The scope has drastically changed, and none of the changes have come before the committee.” Marsh disputes the argument that the developers were prohibited from starting construction until they got their Army Corps permit. “People keep conflating the Army Corps permit for the docking with the territorial permits for the buildings. They could have submitted building permit applications (for the land portion of the development) in 2020,” he said. In the meantime, landowners in Coral Bay have started to consider other options for developing their property to build marine facilities in Coral Bay. In 2022, the Coral Bay Community Council began a “small docks” study to manage planning efforts for developing small access docks and associated services for transient, recreational boaters in Coral Bay, St. John.” The study was funded by a grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the V.I. Department of Planning and Natural Resources. According to the study report, “Coral Bay Community Council researched which docking systems and designs are best suited for small docks in Coral Bay … The focus of this research was on smaller floating style docks that would be simpler and faster to permit and less expensive to purchase.” The CBCC defined a “small dock” as a floating dock that extends 100 feet from shore and has a 25-foot L or T-shape at the end, which covers no more than 500 square feet of surface area over the water. Its design would allow the passage of light to the sea grass beds or coral below the docks.

At the conclusion of the study, three possible sites were determined as suitable locations for small docks that could be easily permitted because of favorable environmental factors. The Coral Bay Community Council has pledged to work with the Department of Planning and Natural Resources and landowners “to determine possible funding sources to cover construction costs.” In an op-ed in the Source written in March 2024, Sharon Coldren, CBCC’s past president and a current board member, questioned why investors continued to fund the Summers End Group’s marina project. She told the Source Friday she still stands by her opinion piece (“except for a few minor updated documents”) and said she would be happy to suggest “better alternatives that the community can support” to Summer’s Ends’ investors.” One Final Note by the Reporter: This hearing had something that other hearings involving Summer’s End did not have: the emotional testimony of Jacquelyn Clendenin, the daughter of Eglah Marsh Clendenin, a St. John property owner who, along with her sister Minerva Marsh Vasquez, leased her property for the marina project in 2013.

“It was always understood that these properties were to remain in the family for generations from our grandfather’s time,” Clendenin said. Her testimony continues: “In 2013, the sisters signed a long-term lease for the development of those properties with Coral Bay Marina. At the time they signed the lease, our mother and aunt did not have independent legal representation. They placed their faith in a close friend of our mother, who assured them this would be a good thing to do for their family and for their legacy. “The lease was transferred from Coral Bay Marina to the Summer’s End Group in 2014. The yearly payments were supposed to be around $65,000 per year, with increases for inflation every four years. “In 2015, the sisters were getting up in age, and their health was declining. Our mother was showing signs of early dementia. Our mother, with her attorney, created a will in May of 2015. “She designated Power of Attorney to ourselves and Vincen Clendinen Jr. “In 2016, our mother was taken to sign another amendment to the lease. Our mother had no legal representation present to assist her in deciphering the content of the document. Her doctor had already diagnosed her as having dementia prior to her signing this amendment. This amendment provided a waiver to the Summer’s End Group from all unpaid prior lease payments and eliminated all future lease payments until which time that the Summer’s End Group received all necessary permits and construction began.” Since 2016, the Summer’s End Group “has not paid any rent or land taxes for our family’s leased property in Coral Bay,” Clendenin said. “The family has been paying the land tax and still cannot utilize our ancestral land.” In 2021, Clendenin’s aunt died, and in 2023, her mother died. “An entire generation has passed waiting for this to bear fruit,” she said. “Additionally, over the past nine years, we have made numerous attempts to rectify this matter by attempting to void the lease, and we were willing to negotiate a new lease with the signatures of the appropriate Power of Attorney and the current Trustees with The Summer’s End Group to no avail. “The Marsh/Clendinen family is united in our wish to terminate the lease with The Summer’s End Group and be able to have more input into the development of our property in a way that benefits our family, the community, and future generations, as was our grandfather’s original wish for the family legacy.” It’s impossible to say with any certainty, but with these words, the mood in the Senate chambers on Thursday seemed to shift. Before Clendenin’s testimony, the focus of the hearing was more about how the loss of the project would affect the economic development of Coral Bay and send a chilling message to other developers who were seeking to do business in the Virgin Islands. Clendenin’s words showed the project’s developers in a different light, and though the issues involving her family’s land had little to do with the question of whether or not the Summer’s Ends’ CZM permit had expired, it took some of the wind out of their sails.

When a staffer filed a workplace sexual harassment complaint against Sen. Angel Bolques Jr. in March, the case was routed through an internal review by the V.I. Legislature’s Committee on Ethical Conduct — ultimately resulting in a 30-day suspension without pay. But the timeline and limited information shared publicly or with fellow lawmakers have since fueled questions about how internal complaints are handled — and how those processes compare to what’s in place across the rest of government.

While most executive branch employees are covered by the Division of Personnel’s sexual harassment policy, the Legislature operates under a separate 2013 manual, governed by its own internal rules. Unlike the Personnel policy, which triggers a strict series of investigative deadlines and external oversight, the Legislature’s process is almost entirely self-contained — and imposes a much shorter window for staff to file complaints.

Under current sexual harassment policy, legislative employees must submit a written complaint within 45 calendar days of the alleged incident and request a formal hearing within 60 days. Investigations are conducted internally, with final disciplinary decisions requiring a vote of the full Senate — even in cases involving sitting lawmakers.

By contrast, the Division of Personnel’s process — which governs most other government agencies — encourages prompt reporting but does not impose a filing deadline. Once a complaint is received, however, the timeline becomes rigid: within 24 hours, the report must be escalated to a supervisor, then transmitted to Personnel within five working days, and assigned to an investigator within another five. Investigations must be completed within 30 working days (extendable to 60), and a resolution must be issued within 180 days of the original filing.

The Division’s policy also provides that if a dispute arises between an agency head and Personnel over the investigation’s outcome, the matter is referred to the governor for final review — a layer of external oversight absent from the Legislature’s internal model.

Asked by the Source why the Legislature does not follow the Division of Personnel’s policy, Sen. Kenneth Gittens — chair of the Committee on Ethical Conduct that investigated the complaint against Bolques — said the answer lies in the government’s constitutional structure.

“The Legislature is a separate and coequal branch of government, and therefore not subject to policies established for the executive branch,” Gittens said in a written response to the Source. “That said, we do align with many of the same standards and share the Division’s sexual harassment training curriculum as part of our ongoing commitment to maintaining a safe and respectful workplace.”

Both policies require annual employee training, but only the Division mandates that completions be tracked. Its policy also requires supervisors to complete specialized training within their first year of employment. The Legislature’s manual, meanwhile, requires that policies and Affirmative Action Officer contact information be posted in every office and online — though the document is referenced but not included in full within the official rules, and not posted on its website. It was provided to the Source upon request by the Executive Director’s Office.

Who Sees What — and When?

As in the Bolques case, when the accused is a senator, the Legislature’s Committee on Ethical Conduct is responsible for investigating and recommending disciplinary action. That recommendation then goes to the full Senate for a vote. But several lawmakers expressed frustration during a recent session that they were not given access to the full complaint or supporting documentation — a concern that raised further questions about transparency within the process.

“Our responsibility is to gather the facts as thoroughly as possible and report our findings to the full body, which we did through a final report,” Gittens explained. “This document outlined the basis for our conclusions and the evidence considered.”

Gittens added that any restrictions on sharing additional materials stemmed from “allegations that, due to timing and procedural constraints, were outside the Committee’s jurisdiction,” and that stepping outside the rules would have been unethical.

Meanwhile, neither the Legislature’s policy nor its rules require referrals to the Justice Department — even in cases involving repeated harassment, stalking, or physical assault. The Senate president or executive director may take “direct institutional action” or assign an investigation without a formal complaint, but external reporting is discretionary.

“The Committee on Ethical Conduct conducted an administrative investigation, and the matter was addressed at that level,” Gittens said. “Should the complainant have additional information or choose to pursue the matter further, they are free to refer it to the Department of Justice at their own discretion.”

In August, Gittens filed legislation to expand the window for ethics complaints from 60 days to a full legislative term, plus 60 days into the next. He said the change is necessary to ensure complaints aren’t dismissed on technical grounds — particularly in cases that may emerge toward the end of a senator’s term.

Still, the proposal has reignited discussion about how internal complaints are handled — and whether the existing policy framework does enough to protect employees within the Legislature.