Did the St. Thomas Board of Elections violate the Open Meetings law 1 V.I.C. §254 in the recent meeting to appeal the Daniels case?
The St. Thomas Board of Elections went into Executive Session with three attorneys from the Attorney Generals office. Surely, at least one of the attorneys knew or should have known the requirements of 1 V.I.C. §254, especially since they are supposed to supervise and advise the board members of the laws.
The attorneys should have known of the case VI Daily News v. VI Government, et al December 19, 2005 regarding Open Meetings and executive sessions requirements. The Court ordered, adjudged and decreed that the VI Government
§ violated 1 V.I.C. §254(d) when they failed to maintain up-to-date schedules [of]meetings indicating reasons for entering closed Executive Session during said meetings;
§ shall cease any policy or practice of conducting any meeting . . . without maintaining an up-to-date schedule of the meeting that indicates whether the meeting or a portion thereof will be closed and if closed the reason therefor, as required by 1 V.I.C. §254(d);
§ violated 3 V.I.C. §884(a) by failing to make a verbatim record and transcript of the closed Executive Sessions held
§ shall cease any policy or practice of conducting any meeting, including any Executive Session, without making a verbatim record of the proceedings and reducing the record to transcript not later than sixty (60) days after the meeting, as required by 3 V.I.C. §884(a).
Did the St. Thomas Board of Elections [STT-BOE] maintain an up-to-date schedule with the reasons for entering closed Executive Session?
Did they make a verbatim record and transcript of the closed Executive Session?
Did they even have the required number of votes to go into a closed meeting in accordance with 1 V.I.C 254 (c)(1) which requires a majority of the entire membership with no proxies… to vote to take the action of a closed meeting? Seven members make up the entire membership of the STT-BOE. Only four were at the meeting and 3 voted.
If the meeting was done improperly, what happens now? Maybe the Attorney General can help.
Editor's note: We welcome and encourage readers to keep the dialogue going by responding to Source commentary. Letters should be e-mailed with name and place of residence to email@example.com.