Announcement

On April 16, 2025, the minority faction of the USVI constitutional convention announced that it has created a website that will have comprehensive information about the convention. This announcement is to be much applauded and, if they deliver on that promise, means that the meetings webpage you are looking at has largely become obsolete. However, I may continue to post some information not  otherwise available.

Meetings

From Resolution 1, Passed Jan. 28, 2025:

Plenary sessions of the Constitutional Convention may be held each first Saturday of every month until the adjournment day of this Sixth Constitutional Convention, All sessions of the Convention and all meetings of a Standing Committee are open to the public except when the Convention or the Standing Committee, during the session or meeting and with a quorum present, determines by roll-call vote that all or part of the remainder of the session or meeting on that day or another day certain shall be closed to the public pursuant to the provisions of Title 1, section 254, Virgin Islands Code.

[J.H. Snider note: There is a huge difference between nominally and practically public open meeting rules. As of March 5, 2025, the convention had nominally but not practically public open meeting rules. For example, one had to be an insider to know of the existence of the convention’s March 1 meeting, where it was being held, and how to watch it via Zoom. On March 4, 2025, I finally received a copy of Resolution 1 via a personal relationship with a delegate.]

January 28, 2025 Meeting

The date of this meeting was included in the legislature’s enabling act for the convention.

This was the convention’s first meeting. It was an administrative rather than a substantive meeting, and the local press covered it (see News & Opinion) page. The key item of business was passage of Resolution 1 establishing the charter for the convention, and the most noteworthy feature of Resolution 1 is that only eight of the convention delegates voted for it.  Of the eight votes, the entire St. Croix delegation (seven votes) voted for it plus one vote from the St. Thomas delegation.

A video of the meeting was posted on Facebook. It begins at around 1:56 (almost two hours after the video begins; the first part includes oath taking and related ceremonial activities). Photos from the first meeting were also posted on Facebook.

Feb. 11, 2025

I am not aware of any public notice of this plenary meeting of the convention. Nor does it appear that any members of the public were present. Fortunately, there was a transcript of this meeting, although it was released more than a month later. Without that transcript, I don’t believe I’d even know that this meeting existed. The morning session of the meeting focused on fierce disagreement over the rules of the convention, which gave the chair great power over the convention process.  The result was the same type of 8 to 7 vote that resulted in Resolution 1 at the first meeting in later January. This suggested a hardening of the factions. The afternoon session was much more cordial and focused on the proposed committed structure for the convention. The logic of the two sessions seemed to be strikingly different, with the first focused on trying to put together a winning coalition among the delegates regarding the convention’s rules, and the second, with that question out of the way, focused merely on influencing the decision of the chair regarding how he would set up the convention’s committees, as the newly passed rules gave him the power over the committee structure.

March 1, 2025 Meeting

This was the convention’s third plenary meeting, and its first meeting addressed to the substance of the proposed constitution. The local press covered it (see News & Opinion) page. The key business of the convention is done in non-public committees.  At this meeting, the work of the committees was reported.

The Zoom of the meeting allowed for participant chatting. One of the questions the delegates discussed was “what is constitutional?” I wasn’t happy with the discussion, so I engaged in a brief chat:

J.H. Snider to Everyone 11:59 AM
On the question of what is properly constitutional, it is vital to distinguish between the nature of our national and state constitutions. Our national constitution only confers delegated powers, which means Congress and the Federal government can only do things specifically allowed in the federal constitution. In contrast, a local legislature and corresponding government authorities can do ANYTHING not specifically prevented by a local constitution. This is a huge difference in the function of a constitution. Any discussion of the function of USVI’s constitution should take this distinction into account. So far, it is not clear to me that the convention delegates are aware of this distinction.

 

Malachi Thomas in reply to J.H. Snider 12:29 PM
An important distinction, yes. However, you do need to consider our political status and the spirit of our perception of our political status. This constitution we’re contemplating would be unique in that the spirit guiding it is based on a dual desire to be independent and maintain a relationship with the US. This is partly the root of the argument from folks who claim we need to settle the issue of our status first. Our current status presents many constitutional issues. For instance, it is understood that the entire US Constitution does not flow down to unincorporated Territories. How then can the VI Constitution acknowledge the US Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land if it only matters in part and not in whole? Can the VI Constitution fill the gaps left by the sections of the US Constitution that do not flow down in ways that might contravene those same sections of the US Constitution?

 

J.H. Snider in reply to Malachi Thomas 12:52 PM
I agree that it is an important and tricky constitutional design consideration that the entire US Constitution does not flow down to unincorporated territories. My point is that, as a rule of thumb, the shorter the constitution the more powerful the territorial legislature. Remember that a major function of a constitution is to rein in the constituted powers, including the legislature. Crucially, a short national constitution tends to rein in Congress whereas the opposite relationship occurs with a territorial constitution. A primary reason U.S. state constitutions tend to be longer than the national constitution is because of the recognition of the need to make legislatures more accountable. I’d suggest that USVI’s legislature does “nice” very well but desperately needs more accountability provisions; for example, it has awful legislative and government transparency standards. Having said that, I agree that many policy-type provisions shouldn’t be in a constitution.

 

Malachi Thomas in reply to J.H. Snider 1:20 PM
I concur on the need to ensure this temporary branch of government does not misidentify its purpose, especially in a way that might interfere with the purpose of another branch of government or private enterprise.

I completely concur that we need to enshrine accountability and transparency provisions across all branches, and we also need to create a framework of government that does not allow for a type of monarchal executive.

I also concur with the understanding that powers not enumerated in the US Constitution are powers to be enjoyed by States. The first question now, given our history, is does that aspect of the US Constitution flow down to us? Do we have the privilege of exercising the creativity allowed by powers that aren’t enumerated in the US Constitution?

We agree that this convention needs to take its responsibility more seriously by deciding to do more than just rectify the failures of the 5th convention. This is another opportunity to conduct extensive research and outreach to create a framework of government that is effective, representative, and sustainable.

As members of this community, we all need to commit to being an example of how we want our government to function – starting by being attentive and participatory. I will continue to stay informed of this convention’s work and provide my constructive thoughts and concerns whenever necessary. I implore my peers, neighbors, and countrymen to do the same.

March 27, 2025 Meeting

The VICC Standing Committee on Government Structure will hold its second Committee meeting. The public could attend in person and remotely and comment for up to five minutes.

● Date: Thursday, March 27, 2025

● Time: 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM

● Location: Room 408, Albert Sheen Campus, University of the Virgin Islands

This was the first meaningfully public meeting of one of the convention’s committees. My comment focused on the poor audio quality for those attending remotely.  I encouraged speakers to hold the mic when they spoke, which they subsequently did. I still had some difficulty following the comments, perhaps because an omnidirectional rather than directional mic was used.

My policy comments focused on the future amendments section, which I argued typically gets short shrift at conventions even though this provision is vital to the health of a constitution a generation or more after it is passed. I suggested a ban on plural office holding for future convention delegates and the use of open primaries, fusion voting, and ranked-choice voting for delegate elections.

In the online chat accompanying the remote access, I observed:

J.H. Snider to Everyone 1:27 PM

I agree with David Silverman that this structure committee is the most important committee in terms of the quality of USVI’s government. The press and public will likely be most focused on the rights discussed at the convention. But this committee will have the most impact on creating a well-functioning, democratically accountable government.

J.H. Snider to Everyone 2:39 PM

Regarding the discussion of ethics commissions, they have also been viewed as “fourth branch” institutions where the commissioners must be strictly independent of the other three branches of government.  The extent of the bans on plural office holding and other potential conflicts can be striking and much greater than what I outlined in my comments today in the context of future USVI concon delegate elections.

April 5, 2025

The notice for this meeting can be found here.

● Date: Saturday, April 5, 2025

● Time: 10:30 AM – 3:30 PM

● Location: Legislature of the Virgin Islands Annex, Cruz Bay, St. John

Since the March 27 committee meeting, the meeting audio and video quality has improved. Each speaker now had their own mic and the camera shifted positions to show who was speaking.  Nevertheless, at the beginning of the meeting, the audio was abysmal.  And though it improved after about a half hour, it still was inconsistent and generally poor.

Here is a sample of related comments in the meeting chat:

J.H. Snider 10:46 AM
Great mic setup but still mediocre audio.

J.H. Snider to  Everyone 10:53 AM
Despite all the effort, which I appreciate, the audio remains poor.

Rudel Hodge  to  Everyone 10:53 AM
Audio is extremely poor.

Kaden Grouby  to  Everyone 10:54 AM
I’d love to stay but I really can’t understand what’s being said.

Rudel Hodge 10:54 AM
Please can we get proper investment into the gear to make this convention work properly

This meeting had substantial public testimony, including more than a half dozen local testifiers in person and several remote testifiers. My testimony concerned the proposed constitution’s open government provisions. I argued that a general “right to know” provision was inadequate. While a good right to know provision is beneficial, most effort should focus on including open government provisions in the body of the constitution, including the articles covering the legislature and executive branch. To illustrate the problem with legislative transparency, I mentioned the history of the four enabling acts for the current convention. For example, a single subject rule, which more than forty U.S. states have, would have prevented the legislature from adding convention rules to totally unrelated bills and at the last moment.  And for public documents,  I suggested the rule that public should mean “online” and “machine readable.” By machine-readable, I mean searchable by a search engine such as Google or Bing. The legislature’s bills are not machine-readable. Nor have all the convention’s documents been machine-readable. 

April 12, 2025

The notice for this meeting can be found here.

● Date: Saturday, April 12, 2025

● Time: 10:00 AM – 3:00 PM

● Location: VI Port Authority, Conference Room Henry E. Rohlsen Airport Terminal, Estate Manning Bay, Christiansted, St. Croix, VI 00821

The session package for this meeting can be found here. It includes the meeting agenda, the convention’s budget, a summary of the five convention committees, and revisions to Resolution 2. This package was sent to the public on April 4, 2025 but not sent to the press or public before the meeting. I believe that this is the first meeting agenda made available to the public.

Here is a sample of related comments in the meeting chat:

J.H. Snider 10:20 AM
I did not receive an agenda for today’s meeting. Was it posted online anywhere or otherwise distributed to the public? It apparently was distributed to the delegates on April 4.

J.H. Snider 10:25 AM
So far, the audio has been excellent. Whoever is responsible for the audio, thank you!

J.H. Snider 10:42 AM
In my judgment, other than choosing the convention’s president, choosing the convention’s legal counsel is the most important administrative decision the convention is likely to make. The counsel may work in the background but in practice is extremely powerful.

J.H. Snider 11:03 AM
The budget is absurdly low for a subnational constitutional convention. If necessary, the convention should repurpose the educational funds to convention needs. The legislature may object but that type of dedicated fund for “PR,” which I believe was the intent of this fund, has sometimes been successfully challenged in court on First Amendment grounds.

Genevieve Whitaker 11:36 AM
Good morning, to all, @J.H. Snider good point, during my time in office as a Prime Sponsor of the establishment of the Sixth Constitutional Convention, in my extensive amendment I attempted to raise the initial funding amounts, to no avail as my amendment was not supported.

J.H. Snider 11:50 AM
When discussing the convention’s budget, I recommend using the budget of a single legislator and the legislature in general as a reference point. The legislature will howl in protest, but this would hardly be an unusual reference point for convention budgeting. Along with control of the delegate election process and the convention’s counsel, control of a convention’s budget is a classic way a legislature seeks to control a convention and undermine its independence. If this dynamic plays out in the coming months and a convention budget crunch becomes immanent and catches the public’s attention, the incentive of a legislature to undermine a convention’s independence should be part of the discussion. He who pays the piper calls the tune–but when it comes to legislatures controlling convention budgets, that power has proven to be fraught with potential for abuse. To be sure, this is a tricky issue full of difficult tradeoffs. But they should be discussed in light of the above concerns.

J.H. Snider 1:33 PM
I hope the education committee will recognize that its stated educational items such as “the purpose of a constitution” and “the role of the 6th constitutional convention” are fundamentally contestable concepts. I would suggest that instead of providing one view the committee provide a range of views. I would also suggest that the committee ask questions such as “what makes a constitution democratically legitimate?” and “what makes a constitutional convention democratically legitimate?” As a rule, constituted powers (the powers created by an organic act or constitution) will have different answers to such questions than the constituent power (the people with authority to create a constitution). The former seek social sanction for and an increase of their power. The latter seek improved democratic accountability. The difference between those two goals will usually be denied and papered over with grand rhetoric about popular sovereignty. I hope the committee will resist that temptation.

April 22, 2025 Meeting, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm

VICC Standing Committee on Education & Public Information–1st Public Meeting.

The committee has drafted and discussed, prior to this meeting, two reports: 1) a “Comprehensive Branding Plan” and 2) a “Comprehensive Marketing Plan.”

The notice for this meeting can be found here.

My overall assessment is that this public meeting was designed as a pseudo public meeting, what some call “window dressing.” My reason for this assessment is that the committee members had been discussing their two proposed written public education reports for a month before this meeting.  But that didn’t bother me so much, even if it violated good public meeting protocol. What bothered me is that the public was invited to participate in this public meeting without the opportunity to read the reports before the meeting, thus largely wasting everryone’s time.  Moreover, by the time this meeting came along, the delegates seemed to have very little to say about it–or at least not in public.  Having said that, the delegates did provide an overview of their two reports and were extremely welcoming of public participation, and I appreciated that. Still, the fact that the committee isn’t making its agendas and key documents public, including minutes for its past private and public meetings, is disturbing.  Maybe such window dressing for the public will be dismantled in the coming months. But my sense is that this committee’s two public education reports–with a budget of $150,000–will be more of the same.

My comments in the chat room, which were scattered over the duration of the meeting:

Thank you. The audio appears excellent.

However, the only 24 hour public notice for this public meeting was inadequate. It should be at least 72 hours notice. On the other hand, the remote public access to this meeting should be commended.

I haven’t seen a draft of this plan. Has any other member of the public seen it? If not, that is a bad omen for a committee whose mission is to enhance public education.

Thank you for that explanation. [The Committee chair explained that this was only a “draft” so not suitable for distribution to the public.]

As a historical tidbit, I’m not aware of a single U.S. subnational constitutional convention during the last 125 years where 50% or more of a convention’s budget was dedicated to “education.” I haven’t been allowed to see the education plan, but I wonder if it covers things like good public records for the convention; that is, parts of “education” not generally considered “PR.”

I hope that in the description of “the purpose of a constitution” the committee will recognize that there is not one definitive answer but a range of disagreements. For example, the role of a constitution in Russia is different than in the U.S. There is also often a huge difference between a national and subnational constitution. For example, in the U.S., subnational constitutions limit the plenary power of “constituted powers” (the offices created by a constitution) whereas at the national level the default power arrangement is the opposite (constituted powers are only supposed to have enumerated powers).

We are now one hour into this public meeting, and I’ve been able to understand everything that has been said. This is the first public committee meeting of the convention where this has been so. Whoever gets credit for the consistently high quality of the audio, thank you! My sense is that this was a group effort, as the delegates are speaking remotely through their own mics.

Thank you for letting me speak. Chair Carrington, you asked me to summarize my public testimony, so I’ll do so here, as you requested. First, meaningful public participation is difficult at a public meeting when the public doesn’t have advance access to the documents that the delegates are discussing. I’d also suggest that in the convention’s proposed right-to-know provision in the constitution that it mandate that the public have access to all public meeting documents at the time that the meeting is public noticed. Second, the committee wants to maximize the public audience for the convention’s work. A definitive finding of political science is that controversy generates public interest. Similarly, competition stimulates voter turnout and involvement. If the convention presents its findings as coming from on high, audience interest is likely to be reduced. Third, key concepts that the committee wants to convey to the public, such as “what is the purpose of a convention?” are what political scientists would describe as fundamentally contested concepts. Please ask yourself “what makes a constitution democratically legitimate?” a really crucial question, and you’ll discover a lot of disagreement. Even seemingly obvious answers, such as a “good democratic process” in making a constitution, are hotly debated. For me, the key to the democratic legitimacy of a convention’s proposal is the ability of the public to revise it in a highly democratic process. For most people, this isn’t an intuitive answer at first glance.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:25 pm, about 35 minutes early. Just as it was adjourning, I asked in the chat room: Please let us know when the public will be able to see the draft reports for this meeting.

April 24, 2025 Meeting, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm

VICC Standing Committee on Culture and Heritage–1st Public Meeting.

The notice for this meeting can be found here.

This public meeting, unlike the last one, seemed to have more substantive delegate comments. On the other hand, there seemed to have been much less prep work leading up to this meeting. Delegates wrestled with the basic terms and agenda of this committee.

My comments in the chat room:

Excellent audio!

Regarding Rudel Hodge’s aspirations, it’s hard to do a comparative analysis of other constitutions without appropriate staff support.

Delegate Rudel A. Hodge, Jr.•06:41 PM

I would disagree. Are you aware of the https://www.constituteproject.org/

Yes, I’m well aware of it, and it’s a highly regarded resource. But last I checked, Constitute doesn’t include U.S. states and territorial constitutions. It still also takes substantial time to go through 180 or so country constitutions. But perhaps for the subject of this committee, the resource task is comparatively manageable compared to, say, comparing the structure of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

Delegate Rudel A. Hodge, Jr.•06:48 PM

If you’re willing to do that work, then that’s great.

April 26, 2025 Meeting, 10:00 am to 8:00 pm

VICC Standing Committee on Government Structure–3rd Public Meeting.

The notice for this meeting can be found here.