Today's planary session was schedule to run from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm with an hourlong lunch break.

The morning session was devoted to Constitutional Advisor Richard Albert's legal critique of the proposed constitution. His focus was on preventing provisions in the draft constitution that would conflict with federal law or, because of ambiguity, foster expensive lawsuits. Any provisions that conflict with federal law would be a red flag for Congress, which must approve VICC's proposed constitution.

The afternoon session was devoted to VICC Legal Counsel Mark Hodge's more general critique of VICC's work. What I thought was most interesting was that despite Hodge's legal role, his comments appeared highly policy-oriented. He explained this orientation because he says that when he has a client he often provides more than just legal analysis. One extra-legal focus of his was suggesting that the provisions of the proposed constitution not interfere with other government bodies' turf.

It's now clear why VICC has wanted to make these "public meetings" effectively private. That's because, for a motivated listener, such as someone running against the delegates for USVI's legislature or a potential litigant, the meetings would have provided ammunition.

This is VICC's third meeting in a row, including its first plenary session, where VICC provided no email notice to the general public. At VICC's last plenary session in May, it provided email notice only five minutes before the meeting was scheduled to begin.

What VICC has apparently decided to do is email notice to favored journalists and select others. The rest may find notice in the low-profile calendar section published in one of the various St. John, St. Thomas, or St. Croix sources.

One apparent criterion for a favored journalist may be that he or she is unlikely to attend and provide thoughtful coverage of a VICC meeting. The USVI Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse would not meet that criterion.

This meeting was the first time I had seen a substantial portion of VICC's proposed constitutional amendment article. As I note in my comment below, I was very disappointed with what I saw.

Here were my comments:

J.H. Snider 10:02 AM
I'm not hearing anything.  Are others getting sound?

J.H. Snider 10:04 AM
Now getting sound.

J.H. Snider 10:19 AM
For the non-delegates at this meeting, how did you receive notice of it? I used to receive email notice of VICC meetings but for its last three meetings, I have received no notice, and for the previous plenary meeting in May, I received email notice only five minutes before the meeting began.

Bonny CORBEIL 10:38 AM
I received an email from Delegate Imani Daniel.
Bonny.

J.H. Snider 10:43 AM
Thank you for that information, Bonny.

Bonny CORBEIL 11:09 AM
You are most welcome. Bonny.

J.H. Snider 12:22 PM
Professor Albert gave an excellent, highly useful presentation, and I can see why VICC would have opposed inviting the public to such meetings, which helps explain why only three members of the public, including me, attended this meeting.

This is the first time I've seen any parts of the draft constitution’s language for the constitutional amendments article, despite my having requested to see it multiple times over the past year.  Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to read the entire article, as Professor Albert only showed the parts that raised legal concerns for him.  But much of what I did see disappointed me on substantive grounds, which weren’t part of Professor Albert’s remit.  What a sad outcome!

I’d like to quote from Professor Albert’s writings: “There is no part of a constitution more important than the rules we use to change the meaning of the constitution. And you don’t have to take my word for it.  There was a study… that polled constitutional law professors about ‘what is the most important provision in a constitution,’ and it turns out that the answer is constitutional amendment rules.“ To this I respond: VICC certainly has not acted as though it agrees with this assessment. But perhaps the resulting cut-and-paste mediocrity of the amendment article was VICC’s intent.  Regardless, what a sad outcome!

J.H. Snider 2:42 PM
Delegate Daniel's question to VICC's Legal Counsel, Hodge, concerning his role was the same question I had in mind.  Hodge's focus on so-called "practical considerations," which went well beyond legal considerations, was surprising, given his title.