
Fifteen delegates to the territory’s Constitutional Convention took the oath of office two weeks ago. After a few false starts, they convened Tuesday and clashed while hammering out a procedural framework for drafting a sixth attempt at a U.S. Virgin Islands Constitution.
Tuesday’s session, which was held in person and virtually over Zoom, was plagued by technological issues, but communication problems between delegates appeared to extend further. As members began discussing the adoption of rules, some delegates questioned whether they had the most up-to-date copy, which was sent out at 10 a.m. Tuesday — the same time the meeting started.
A motion to adopt those rules was immediately met with objections.
“The rules are very important, and I think that’s why, over the last three months, the St. Thomas-St. John delegation has reached out to all of the members of the St. Croix district to have a collaborative effort to draft rules that we all have consensus under. This should not be a contentious issue,” said Imani Daniel, who added that the version sent out that morning differed from one previously sent to delegates, who were effectively voting to “blindly ratify” them.
“At what point do you start to collaborate? At what point do you actually respect our input and our ability to add to these rules? Because we are showing up in good faith, because we do want rules that we can all be proud of and then build consensus on,” she said before firing off a series of pointed rhetorical questions at the delegates from St. Croix.
“It is my hope that you consider each of our inputs, because this document right here — I’m not sure if everyone had adequate, enough time to go through it,” said Akima Richardson.
Delegate-at-Large Alecia Wells gifted her allotted speaking time back to Daniel, who agreed with statements made by former V.I. Republican Party Chair John Canegata that the proposed rules formed “a strong document.” Several others spoke in favor of the proposed rules.
“The issues that I have with it the most is that it consolidates power to the chair at the advice and consent of the executive committee — that is taking away each of our democratic right to have a voice and vote on what goes on in this,” she said. “So no, there’s nothing egregious, there’s nothing offensive, but it is not as equitable and democratic as it could be.”
Daniel’s call for a postponement was backed by Wells and former Sen. Arturo Watlington, both of whom served in the Fifth Constitutional Convention.
“I don’t believe [in] giving you, anyone — president, vice president, secretary — ultimate power to bind, or in fact, have the authority to obligate funds of this convention without other people’s involvement,” Watlington said. “This is not a dictatorship. This is not Trump’s presidency.”
Delegate Lydia Hendricks also called for convention members to work together.
“I joined this convention for collaboration. This is our sixth Constitutional Convention, and many of you have been in the same place before, and you are coming back with the same things,” she said, adding that previous attempts failed because members failed to come together. “I don’t think that the chair should have so much power, and that’s what I’m seeing, and it’s scary.”
The list of grievances lengthened throughout the morning and early afternoon. Delegate David Silverman took issue with convention president and former Senate President Usie Raymond Richards’s handling of attempts to introduce motions earlier in the session, which he said conflicted with the body’s de facto procedures outlined in Robert’s Rules of Order — a commonly used standard framework for group decision-making.
Silverman also took issue with how the proposed rules were created, saying that as recently as last week there had been three drafts, and their authors had been unable to come to a consensus because of medical issues and power outages.
“But notwithstanding all of that, we have not had a substantive discussion to try to reconcile these two sets of rules, and that is the rationale for Ms. Daniel’s motion to postpone the consideration until we’ve had an opportunity to meet as a joint group,” he said. “That motion is fully in order and should have been attended to.”
The convention ultimately voted to adopt the rules in an 8-7 vote.
Tempers then flared during a subsequent discussion about whether the vote to adopt the rules should have required a two-thirds majority to pass. The question appeared to rankle Delegate John Abramson Jr., whose use of profanity prompted a rebuke from Richards.
Later, Daniel referenced a section of Robert’s Rules of Order indicating that the vote did require a two-thirds majority.
“And again, twice now my motion to postpone has been completely ignored — like we are so in violation of Robert’s Rules of Order, at the whim of the chair,” she said, “which is literally the reason that we wanted to amend these rules, so that we could all diplomatically and democratically have these discussions. We’re already seeing that fall apart here.”
The tenor of Tuesday’s meeting was notably cooler after lunch when delegates discussed the formation and organization of committees and the revision process. No further votes were taken other than one adjourning the meeting.