Amid a tight summer construction timeline and growing concerns over school readiness, lawmakers on Tuesday grilled officials from the Bureau of School Construction and Maintenance (BSCM) over stalled projects, salaries, and oversight gaps—raising questions about whether $13.3 million in planned maintenance work will be enough to meet even basic standards before students return to campus this fall.

Testifying before the Senate Committee on Education and Workforce Development, BSCM Executive Director Craig Benjamin outlined the scope of the summer work: more than 130 projects across both districts targeting everything from roof leaks and plumbing failures to A/C installation and generator upgrades. But despite the effort and price tag, senators zeroed in on whether the Bureau was functioning with enough urgency—or transparency.

According to Benjamin, the Bureau is working to complete:

• 51 projects in the St. Thomas-St. John District, including roof repairs at Joseph Sibilly and Ivanna Eudora Kean, HVAC replacements at Charlotte Amalie High School, and restroom upgrades at several campuses.

• More than 80 projects in the St. Croix District, including plumbing fixes, parking lot resurfacing, and the installation of a JROTC tower.

Combined, these projects carry an estimated price tag of $13,337,212.90, split across multiple funding sources. Yet when asked how the agency prioritized work, Benjamin pointed to “low-hanging fruit”—tasks that could be completed quickly to show visible progress—while acknowledging that some principal requests couldn’t be honored due to budget constraints.

One of the biggest concerns raised Monday was about electrical infrastructure—upgrades that are considered critical but may now be stalled due to funding shortfalls. In his testimony, Benjamin confirmed that the Bureau’s plan to overhaul the electrical systems at 15 schools—replacing panels and transformer boxes in preparation for campus-wide generator installation—is now in jeopardy.

“Our plan to do complete electrical replacements at 15 schools territory-wide—including all six elementary schools on St. Croix—was dependent on federal funding that we’ve now lost access to,” Benjamin said. “These upgrades are necessary for all other work—without the ability to power generators or HVAC systems, schools can’t function.”

Sen. Kurt Vialet noted that of the $256.8 million in federal funds awarded to the territory, only $186.8 million has been spent—leaving $61 million that was sent back to the federal government on March 28, including American Rescue Plan funds that could have been utilized. “We just got to do better,” Vialet said.

Despite that urgency, Benjamin confirmed during questioning that the Bureau has not yet written to the Office of Management and Budget to request access to $12.5 million in Epstein settlement funds that have also been earmarked by the Senate for the Bureau—funds that both senators and Benjamin said could be used to fill the gap left by the federal cuts.

At the core of Monday’s hearing was a growing disconnect between BSCM’s stated goals and what lawmakers described as spotty communication, delayed project timelines, and lack of coordination with other agencies.

Sen. Kenneth Gittens didn’t hold back. “You’re telling me we can’t find $300,000 to replace a corroded fence at Ricardo Richards, but we’re paying salaries at $100,000-plus?” he asked. Gittens also raised concerns about the involvement of outside consultants and the pace of contract processing. “We’ve got too many hands in the pot. Too many people slowing this down.”

Bureau officials’ salaries raised eyebrows across the committee. Benjamin currently earns $125,000 while the Bureau’s architect earns $120,000, the construction manager $110,000, and fiscal officer $105,000, among others. While senators did not dispute the need for qualified professionals, several questioned whether outcomes so far justified those figures.

BSCM’s Chief Financial Officer Charmaine Mayers responded that procurement has improved and that internal teams are now better aligned with the Department of Education and the Office of Disaster Recovery. Still, senators remained unconvinced, asking for clearer timelines and a comprehensive update before school reopens.

For her part, Vice Chair of the Virgin Islands Board of Education Emmanuella Perez-Cassius delivered a measured but pointed critique of how the Bureau has operated since Act No. 8717 officially transferred facilities oversight from the Board to BSCM. “No clear expectations or deliverables were set in meetings earlier this year,” she said. “Subsequent meetings have been postponed indefinitely. We have not had a formal opportunity to provide meaningful input into the plan’s review or implementation process.”

Her testimony outlined long-standing challenges in classroom conditions, curriculum alignment, and support for diverse learners—but also emphasized the Board’s ongoing commitment to collaboration.

To mitigate delays, Benjamin said contractors are working evening, weekend, and holiday hours, and a new 20-year maintenance plan is in development. However, under questioning from Sen. Marise James, the process surrounding that plan—and the role of key stakeholders—came under heavy scrutiny.

James cited Act No. 8717, which requires BSCM’s executive director to provide annual reports to the Board of Education and gives the Master School Construction and Capital Plan Review Panel the duty to develop the territory’s first comprehensive 20-year facilities plan. While Benjamin testified that a draft plan has been created, James pressed him on whether it had been formally reviewed by the Board of Education.

Board Vice Chair Winona Hendricks confirmed that the Board received the draft but found it “nebulous, vague in many places,” and lacking clear guidelines to allow meaningful input. “One school construction would be finished 20 years from now,” Hendricks said, explaining that the Board did submit a formal response but had not received confirmation that its feedback had been incorporated.

When asked who was responsible for drafting and revising the plan, Benjamin stated that he is the lead, but emphasized that the process is collaborative. “It’s not a one-person operation—we all put these plans together and we execute,” he said. James, however, was not satisfied, saying she wanted to know specifically which team members or consultants had reviewed the Board’s feedback.

Benjamin said the Bureau is working closely with Witt O’Brien, who has consulted on both the 20-year plan and various aspects of new school construction under the Office of Disaster Recovery. He confirmed that a revised draft exists but has not yet been submitted. When asked for specifics, Benjamin said Witt O’Brien is embedded in the Bureau’s offices and works directly with staff on plan development.

“What’s the cost of that contract?” asked Sen. Vialet.

Benjamin responded that Witt O’Brien was paid a one-time fee of $35,000 for its work on the plan. “They’re working with us in our office,” he said. “We consult with them.”

That response prompted further questioning from Vialet, who expressed concern about the firm’s expanding footprint in local government. “Witt O’Brien seems to have their hands in everything,” he said.

James added that the 20-year plan was due to the Legislature within 180 days of the effective date of the 2023 law and questioned why, more than a year later, there was still no formal submission. “At this point, I just want to see the status of the plan and speak to someone who can answer whether the Board’s comments have been considered,” she said. “There’s too much riding on this for it to still be a work in progress.”

Sen. Franklin Johnson summed up the committee’s frustration: “You’ve got the data. You’ve got the money. But we still have kids showing up to schools with leaking ceilings and broken toilets.”

Despite the criticism, senators acknowledged the Bureau’s efforts to centralize oversight and respond to site-specific issues flagged by lawmakers. “It’s a start,” said Sen. Carla Joseph. “But we expect results.”

The Committee is expected to reconvene in July for a progress update. In the meantime, senators are calling for:

• A full accounting of ARPA expenditures

• A status report on all summer projects by district

• A formal timeline for review of the 20-year master facilities plan

• Tighter fiscal controls and salary justifications

The Bureau has until July 31 to complete the scheduled work and demonstrate measurable progress before students return to classrooms across the territory.

Wednesday, June 18 | 10:30 a.m.

V.I. Superior Court Judge Sigrid Tejo ordered that the Police Benevolent Association Local 816, “and all unnamed members of the bargaining unit who are participating in job actions, are temporarily enjoined and restrained from engaging in a strike, sickout, or other work stoppage activity.”

The TRO will remain in effect for two weeks unless extended further by the court, and a status conference to schedule an evidentiary hearing to discuss the government’s motion for a preliminary injunction is set for 10 a.m. Friday over Zoom.

Tejo wrote that she considered four factors in weighing the government’s request: whether the government showed a reasonable probability of success on the merits; whether they would be irreparably injured if the restraining order was denied; whether granting preliminary relief would cause greater harm to the union; and whether granting the government’s request would be in the public interest.

“The inability to adequately provide for the public safety and ensure essential services poses sufficient reason to believe that a continued or prolonged strike or work stoppage would cause irreparable harm to the public, for which a monetary award can be measured,” she wrote.

Tuesday, June 17 | 10:30 p.m.

From a festival weekend with no uniformed presence to shuttered school patrols and crippled traffic enforcement, an unprecedented wave of police absences has rattled the St. Thomas-St. John District—prompting the government to sue the Police Benevolent Association and spark a legal firestorm over what it calls an illegal job action.

What began as a surge of “sick” calls Sunday, June 15, during the peak of the annual Frenchtown Village festivities, escalated into a full-blown crisis. By Monday, VIPD Commissioner Mario Brooks was calling the absences a de facto strike, warning in court documents that the department’s ability to maintain law and order had been severely compromised.

“Since the officers of the PBA striked, the VIPD is forced to require police supervisors and peace officers in other agencies to assist in covering shifts to prevent complete catastrophe,” Brooks stated in a sworn affidavit filed with the Superior Court Monday.

The Government of the Virgin Islands responded swiftly. On Tuesday, it filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the Police Benevolent Association (PBA) and all participating officers, accusing them of engaging in an illegal work stoppage in violation of both local law and their collective bargaining agreement.

The Virgin Islands Department of Justice, in a press release issued Tuesday, reinforced the seriousness of the situation. “VIPD Officers are classified as Class 3 First Responders and are prohibited by law from engaging in any form of strike, regardless of duration,” the release said. “The current job action is viewed as a threat to public safety and is deemed unacceptable.” The Department added that it was confident the court would act swiftly to end the work stoppage and “ensure adequate staffing to protect the public on every shift.”

The strike—or coordinated “sick-out,” as it has been framed—coincided with one of the busiest weekends in the district. Brooks outlined the fallout in court documents:

• On Sunday, only three officers were assigned to the 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. shift on St. Thomas—all of whom called out sick.

• Six officers in both the Criminal Investigations and Special Operations bureaus also called out.

• Two officers from the downtown patrol assignment, reassigned to the Frenchtown Village, also called in sick.

• On St. John, just one of five scheduled officers reported for duty.

• On Monday, all seven school security officers failed to show.

• All five officers in the Traffic Investigations Bureau called in sick.

• The department, already down 11 officers on National Guard training, was left scrambling.

With resources stretched dangerously thin, festival events had no visible law enforcement presence—only supervisors remained on-site. That left eventgoers, vendors, and residents vulnerable at a time when public visibility was needed most, according to the complaint. The absence of patrols, school security, and traffic enforcement posed a broader risk across the island.

“This strike also financially impacts VIPD,” Brooks wrote, “in that the agency will have to pay overtime at a higher rate for the supervisors to take the shift. Having supervisors work double shifts impacts the health and safety of the supervisor and public since it may affect the alertness of the supervisors.”

The government’s complaint makes clear: the sudden, widespread absences are not seen as spontaneous or coincidental. They are described as a “concerted action” aimed at forcing a change in pay or working conditions, and, as such, fall under the legal definition of a strike under 24 V.I.C. § 362(o).

According to the complaint and supporting filings, a strike includes the “willful absenting” of employees from duty to influence compensation or conditions—a charge echoed repeatedly by government lawyers in the motion for injunctive relief.

“The continued failure of police officers to report to work has resulted, and will continue to result, in inadequate coverage to the public regarding public safety emergencies, the protection of persons and property from physical harm, and the enforcement and regulation of vehicle traffic,” the memorandum states.

VIPD is seeking a mandatory court order under 24 V.I.C. § 375(c)—a statute requiring immediate injunctive relief when Class III employees, such as law enforcement, engage in strikes. According to the law, these employees are prohibited from striking “for any reason,” and once a public employer shows proof of a strike, the court must issue an injunction.

In this case, that proof includes the near-total absence of officers from multiple divisions and what the government calls confirmation from the PBA itself.

In a letter sent to union members Sunday, PBA President Joel Browne Connors acknowledged that while no formal agreement had been reached with the governor or VIPD leadership, discussions had taken place. He said a meeting was scheduled for Monday but that the administration insisted officers return to duty without promise of any additional compensation.

“The administration is requesting that all officers return to duty immediately, with the understanding that you will receive nothing beyond your regular paycheck—because, as they stated, ‘it is your job,’” Connors wrote.

Connors then offered solidarity and support: “But let me be very clear: I stand behind your actions. You have shown strength, unity, and purpose. You are making a difference.”

The government seized on that line in its filings, calling it a clear endorsement of the strike and evidence that the PBA “authorized, approved, and/or sanctioned” the action.

According to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, still in effect despite expiring in 2023, union members are explicitly barred from striking:

• Article VI reads: “As a Class III bargaining unit, members of this unit are prohibited from engaging in a strike as provided by Act 4440.”

• Article V outlines grievance procedures as the exclusive method for resolving disputes, stating that no other job actions should be taken to alter conditions, compensation, or rights.

In short, any disagreement over pay must be addressed through a multi-step grievance and arbitration process—not the streets.

The court is now weighing the government’s request for emergency relief as the territory approaches a packed summer schedule, including the St. John Festival. Government attorneys say the timing of the work stoppage appears deliberate, designed to apply pressure ahead of those events.

According to the complaint, police officers plan to resume the action through July 4—a claim not yet confirmed by the PBA but presented in court filings as a looming threat.