>>> ON THIS EPISODE OF "COMES WITH THE TERRITORY."

WE´LL TALK ABOUT HOW GOVERNMENT FUNDING DELAYS ARE JEOPARDIING THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE CRITICAL SERVICES TO THE MOST VULNERABLE AND THE IMPACT IT´S HAVING ON THE COMMUNITY.

>> NO MONEY, NO VOICE.

>>> PROTESTERS IN FRONT OF THE GOTT HOUSE, DEMANDING ACTION ON RETROACTIVE WAGES.

FOR A LONGSTANDING ISSUE AND HOW PROMISES MADE BY THIS ADMINISTRATION HAVE FALLEN SHORT.

>>> PLUS -- LAWMAKERS MOVE FORWARD, A BILL TO RAISE THE LEGAL AGE FOR TOBACCO PURCHASES TO 21.

THE LEGAL AGE FOR DRINKING AND ALCOHOL REMAINS AT 18.

WE´LL LOOK AT THE AGE LIMITS AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND LOCAL WIZ.

>>> THE LEGISLATION COULD CHANGE THE MAKEUP OF THE BOARD.

WE´LL LOOK AT THE DEBATE OVER QUALIFICATIONS AND REPRESENTATION.

AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE FUTURE.

>>> AND LATER.

>> THIS PANEL JOINS THE CONVERSATION TO ANALYZE THESE ISSUES AND MORE.

"COMES WITH THE TERRITORY" STARTS NOW.

>>> WELCOME TO "COMES WITH THE TERRITORY."

A KEY SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR THE HOMELESS ACROSS THE TERRITORY HAS RECEIVED A FRACTION OF ITS PROMISED PUBLIC SECTOR FUNDS FOR THE YEAR.

PUTTING SERVICES FOR MEALS, SHELTER AND OUTREACH AT RISK.

THE STRAIN ON THIS NONPROFIT COULD HAVE A SERIOUS IMPACT ON OUR MOST DISADVANTAGED RESIDENTS.

HERE´S MORE.

>> CATHOLIC CHARITIES VIRGIN ISLANDS HAS LONG BEEN A PILLAR OF SUPPORT FOR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS ACROSS THE TERRITORY.

THE FAITH-BASED NONPROFIT RUNS SOUP KITCHENS ON ST. THOMAS, ST. JOHN AND ST. CROIX, SERVING HOT MEALS MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY TO THE HOMELESS AND THOSE IN NEED.

THE ORGANIZATION OFFERS EMERGENCY SHELTER AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, GIVING INDIVIDUALS A SAFE PLACE DURING CRITICAL TIMES.

THE OUTREACH INCLUDES MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, RENTAL AND UTILITY ASSISTANCE AND DISASTER RELIEF.

ACTING AS A SAFETY NET FOR THE COMMUNITY.

BUT GOVERNMENT FUNDING IS JEOPARDIZING THE SERVICES.

DURING A SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS HEARINGS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT CATHOLIC CHARITIES RECEIVED 18% OF ITS FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

>> THE TOTAL WE RECEIVD IS $82,000, AGAINST A TOTAL OF $449,000.

>> THIS IS STRAINING THE CHARITY´S ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE FOOD, SHELTER AND CRITICAL SERVICES TO THE HOMELESS AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS.

>> WE´RE DOGTALKING ABOUT 50% OF OUR BUDGET.

WE PROVIDE THE OTHER 50% ON OUR OWN, YEAR IN, YEAR OUT.

WE´RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE 50% THAT WE HAD BEEN LED TO BELIEVE WE WERE GOING TO RECEIVE, FROM PUBLIC SECTOR SUPPORT.

>> AND I HEARD -- I HEAR YOU.

AND THE RESPONSES.

AND THE RESPECT OF KITCHEN AND THE STREET MOBILE OUTREACH.

I KNOW THE WORK THEY DO ON A DAILY BASIS.

AND I SEE IT.

YOU SEE THE PEOPLE WITH SERVICES ON A DAILY BASIS.

>> I´M JOINED BY ANDREA SHILLINGFORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CATHOLIC CHARITIES VIRGIN ISLANDS.

SPEAK TO ME ABOUT HOW THE REDUCTION IN PROMISED GOVERNMENT FUNDING HAS IMPACTED OPERATIONS SO FAR.

>> AS CAN BE EXPECTED, SEVERAL OF OUR PROGRAMS THAT BEEN AFFECTED.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE MEAL THAT WE SERVED, WE TRY NOT TO SERVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, NOT TO SERVE TOO MANY CANNED GOODS.

BUT RECENTLY, DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE´VE NOT RECEIVED FUNDING, ONE OF THE THINGS WE´VE HAD TO RESORT IS TO CANNED GOODS.

AND YOU CAN IMAGINE THE MEALS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE NUTRITIOUS AND HEALTHY.

WE TRY TO SERVE HEALTHY MEALS.

WE HAVE TO MAKE DO WITH WHATEVER WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, WHATEVER DONATIONS WE RECEIVE FROM THE PUBLIC, WHATEVER DONATIONS WE RECEIVE FROM SOME GOOD CORPORATE CITIZENS AND INDIVIDUALS.

>> TELL ME, IS THIS FUNDING, THE FIRST YEAR THIS HAS HAPPENED?

OR HAS THIS BEEN HAPPENING?

>> IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING YEARLY, ON A REGULAR BASIS.

THE FUNDING IS USUALLY DELAYED.

BUT THIS IS THE WORST THAT IT HAS BEEN.

>> SOMETIMES IT´S THE THIRD QUARTER AND FOURTH QUARTER YOU´VE NOT RECEIVED?

>> WE´VE NOT RECEIVED THE THIRD AND FOURTH QUARTER FOR TWO OF THE PROGRAMS.

WE´VE NOT RECEIVED ANY OF THE FUNDING FOR TWO OF THE OTHER PROGRAMS.

>> THAT´S, YOU KNOW -- GO AHEAD.

>> IT LEAVES US KIND OF -- ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO OUR BILLS, WE NOW HAVE TO TRY TO PRIORITIZE WHICH BILLS WE SHOULD PAY AND WHICH BILLS WE NEED TO HOLD BACK BECAUSE WE DON´T WANT TO BE GIVING ANYBODY ANY CHECKS THAT THEY CANNOT CASH.

SO, LUCKY FOR US, WE HAVE A GOOD FINANCIAL OFFICER.

AND HE WILL, ON A DAILY BASIS, DO A CHECK AS TO WHAT IS THE BALANCE, WHAT IS THE BALANCE AT THE BANK?

AND WE SIT TOGETHER AND DECIDE, OKAY, THIS WEEK, WE CAN PAY THESE BILLS.

THESE ARE NOT SO PRESSING, WE CAN HOLD BACK ON THOSE.

AND THEN, WITH OUR STAFFING, WITH OUR TRANSPORTATION, WE HAVE TO CUT BACK ON SOMETIMES THE CLIENTS NEED TO GO -- WE HAVE TO TELL THEM, WE CANNOT DO IT THIS MORNING.

>> THAT´S WHAT I WANT YOU TO SPEAK TO ME ON.

HOW IS THIS IMPACTING THE SERVICES THAT YOU PROVIDE FOR THE CLIENTS AND THE SHORTFALLS YOU ARE SEEING WITH THE SERVICES YOU´RE ABLE TO PROVIDE?

>> THE BIGGEST IMPACT HAS BEEN ON US ABLE TO PROVIDE OUR ASSISTANCE AND UTILITY ASSISTANCE, TO INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED IT.

FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE A YOUNG MOTHER WHO HAS JUST GOTTEN APPROVED FOR HOUSING.

SHE NEEDS TO PAY FOR THE FIRST MONTH AND SECURITY.

AND SHE DOESN´T HAVE THE SECURITY DEPOSIT.

WE WOULD NORMALLY COME IN AND TRY TO ASSIST WITH THAT.

WE CANNOT DO IT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE FUNDING WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO USE FOR THAT, WE´VE BEEN HAVING TO USE IT TO PROVIDE THE MOST ESSENTIAL, WHICH IS SHELTERING AND FEEDING.

THE OTHER SERVICES, THE OTHER SERVICES THAT WE WOULD NORMALLY PROVIDE, WE HAVE PUT ON HOLD ON SOME OF THEM.

>> AND LET ME ASK YOU -- IF YOU CONTINUE TO SEE THIS DELAY IN, YOU KNOW, RECEIVING THE FUNDING, HOW IS THAT GOING TO IMPACT OPERATIONS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF CATHOLIC CHARITIES?

>> IF IT CONTINUES THIS WAY, EVENTUALLY, WE WOULD HAVE -- THE FINAL WORD WOULD BE SHUTTING THE DOORS.

WE WOULD START FIRST WITH CUTTING DOWN ON THE SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE.

FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE YEAR, FISCAL YEAR ´24, WE PROVIDED ALMOST 93,000 MEALS THROUGHOUT THE TERRITORY AND ALMOST 12,000 NIGHTS OF SHELTER.

>> LET ME ASK YOU, WE´RE SEEING IF RESIDENTS ARE PAYING ATTENTION, WE´RE SEEING A LARGE INCREASE IN THE HOMELESS POPULATION.

IT´S A LOT OF STRAIN WE´RE SEEING HAPPENING IN THE COMMUNITY.

ARE YOU SEEING AN INCREASE IN CLIENTS?

AND A SUBSEQUENT REDUCTION IN FUNDING?

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT´S HAPPENING?

>> WE´RE SEEING AN INCREASE IN THE CLIENTS.

THERE´S SEVERAL FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THAT.

FOR EXAMPLE, PEOPLE LOST THEIR JOBS.

RECENTLY, WE HAD A FAMILY THAT WERE LIVING, COUCH SURFING WITH ANOTHER FAMILY.

THEY WERE NOT ON THE LEASE.

THEY HAD TO LEAVE.

IT´S DIFFICULT WHEN YOU HAVE CHILDREN, WHAT WE HAVE SEEN RECENTLY, IS AN INCREASE IN FAMILY COMING TO OUR DOORS FOR SHELTERING.

>> DO YOU THINK THERE´S SPECIFIC BARRIERS OR HURDLES THAT ARE PREVENTING AND HINDERING YOU FROM BEING ABLE TO RECEIVE THE FUNDING?

>> I THINK IT´S NOT REALLY BUREAUCRATIC.

I THINK IT´S MORE THAT PEOPLE DON´T UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT THE NONPROFITS DO.

AND IT´S NOT -- IT´S SOMETHING THAT IS ESSENTIAL.

IT´S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO DO.

I CAN´T IMAGINE, IF WE WERE TO SHUT OUR DOORS.

AND PEOPLE DON´T UNDERSTAND.

AND THEY DON´T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY UNTIL IT AFFECTS THEM PERSONALLY.

NOW, YOU HAVE -- YOU WOULD HAVE A HOMELESS PERSON TAKING UP RESIDENCE OUTSIDE OF THE LEGISLATURE.

WE WILL GET A CALL.

SOMEBODY WILL TRY TO PUSH FOR US TO GET THE FUNDING.

YOU HAVE -- IF WE CLOSE OUR DOORS, CAN YOU IMAGINE CHAOS IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS BECAUSE ALL OF THESE PEOPLE, THE OVER 500 MEALS THAT WE SERVE DAILY, THESE PEOPLE ARE HUNGRY.

IF THEY CANNOT GET THE FOOD FROM US, IF THEY CANNOT GET THE MEALS FROM THE NONPROFIT, WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WILL DO?

THEY WILL ROB.

THEY WILL STEAL.

THEY WILL DO WHATEVER THEY NEED TO DO TO GET THE MEALS BECAUSE HUNGER IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE SATISFIED.

>> YEAH.

DO YOU THINK THAT THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION IS GIVING ENOUGH ATTENTION TO WHAT´S HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, WITH THE CHALLENGES FACING THE VULNERABLE POPULATIONS IN THE TERRITORY?

>> THE FUNDING WAS ALLOCATED.

AND I THINK THERE IS SOME OF THE SENATORS WHO DO -- WILL CALL AND SAY, DID YOU RECEIVE YOUR FUNDING?

AND THEY WOULD MAKE A CALL.

BUT GENERALLY, I THINK THEY JUST WAS THE FUNDING ALLOCATED?

THE FUNDING IS ALLOCATED.

THERE´S NO FOLLOW-UP AS TO WHAT´S HAPPENING.

IS THE FUNDING GOING OUT TO THE PLACE IT IS SUPPOSED TO GO?

IS THE FUNDING GOING TO THE NONPROFIT?

UNLESS THEY TAKE THE TIME TO FOLLOW-UP ON WHAT´S HAPPENING WITH THE FUNDING THAT WAS ALLOCATED, THERE´S NOTHING BEING DONE BECAUSE WE GET -- WE FOLLOW-UP -- >> WITH HUMAN SERVICES.

>> -- WITH HUMAN SERVICES.

>> AND HOW HAS THAT COMMUNICATION BEEN WITH HUMAN SERVICES?

>> WE HAVE AN EXCELLENT RELATIONSHIP.

WE HAVE ESTABLISHED AN EXCELLENT RELATIONSHIP WITH HUMAN SERVICES.

I CAN PICK UP MY PHONE AND CALL AT ANY TIME.

THEY MAKE A LOT OF HUMAN SERVICES, MOST OF OUR REFERRALS COME FROM HUMAN SERVICES.

WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT RELATIONSHIP.

WE WORK WELL WITH HUMAN SERVICES.

AND WE PROVIDE WHATEVER REPORTS AND -- >> WHAT´S NECESSARY.

>> -- WHAT´S NECESSARY.

DOCUMENTATION THAT´S NECESSARY WE PROVIDE TO HUMAN SERVICES.

AND THEY -- EVERY TIME YOU CALL, THEY WILL TELL YOU, IT´S IN THE SYSTEM.

>> BEFORE WE GO, BEFORE WE WRAP UP, I WANT YOU TO TELL ME, HOW CAN THE COMMUNITY ASSIST CATHOLIC CHARITIES, VERY BRIEFLY?

>> THE COMMUNITY CAN ASSIST US BY CONTINUING TO ADVOCATE FOR US.

ADVOCATE WITH THE LEGISLATURE.

ADVOCATE WITH THE SENATORS.

ADVOCATE WITH OTHER COMMUNITY PERSONS, FOR ASSISTANCE.

WE CAN ALSO -- WE ARE HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON DONATIONS.

MONETARY OR IN KIND.

WE DO HAVE A WEBSITE THAT PEOPLE CAN GO TO, TO DONATE.

OR YOU CAN -- >> GIVE ME THAT WEBSITE.

>> WWW.CATHOLICCHARITIES.VI.ORG.

THEY CAN CALL THE OFFICE, 340-777-8518.

I THINK THAT´S IT.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>>> COMING UP, WE´LL HEAR FROM THIS WEEK´S PANEL.

FIRST, LET´S LOOK AT THE TOPICS ON THE TABLE.

>> DO YOU KNOW THE AMOUNT OF RETROACTIVE WAGES THAT IS OWED TO US?

>> THE AMOUNT OF RETROACTIVE WAGES OWED TO EMPLOYEES, STEMMING BACK TO 1989, IS APPROXIMATELY $300 MILLION.

>> IN JULY OF 2015, THE OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TOLD LAWMAKERS THAT THE GOVERNMENT OWED APPROXIMATELY $300 MILLION IN RETROACTIVE WAGES.

>> WE HAVE SET UP FOR SOMETHING.

WE´RE NOT DYING FOR NOTHING.

>> SEEING NO FORTHCOMING PAYMENTS, PROTESTERS RALLIED IN ST. CROIX IN 2019, TO DEMAND RETROACTIVE WAGES OWED.

>> ABOUT THE RETROACTIVE PAY THEY OWE US.

>> IN HIS 2022 STATE OF THE TERRITORY ADDRESS, ALBERT FINE JR.

ADDRESSED THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL.

>> WE ARE TO PAY DOWN $20 MILLION IN RETROACTIVE WAGES IN THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR.

I´M GOING FURTHER THAN THAT.

I´M ALSO PROPOSING THAT WE COMMIT TO PLAN THE PLAN TO PAY THE REMAINING BALANCE OF WHAT IS OWED ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS OF AT LEAST $25 MILLION EVERY SINGLE YEAR UNTIL THE FULL OBLIGATION IS REPAID.

[ APPLAUSE ] >> LATER THAT YEAR, BRYAN UPPED HIS PLEDGE FOR THE 2022 FISCAL YEAR.

>> WE CLOSED OUT 2022 WITH A BUDGET SURPLUS.

THAT ALLOWED US TO PLEDGE SOME $40 MILLION TO THE PAYMENT TOWARDS OF RETROACTIVE WAGES GOING TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES GOING BACK TO 1990.

>> IN OCTOBER OF 2023, GOVERNMENT HOUSE APPROVED THE BILL AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO PAY OUT $25 MILLION IN FISCAL YEARS 2023 AND 2024, TO CONTINUE PAYMENT OF RETROACTIVE WAGES OWED TO EMPLOYEES.

EARLIER THIS YEAR, IT WAS REVEALED IN A FINANCE HEARING, THAT ONLY A FRACTION OF THE $25 MILLION ALLOCATED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023, WAS SPENT ON RETROACTIVE WAGES.

>> OF THE $25 MILLION THAT WAS APPROPRIATED FOR RETROACTIVE PAYMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2023, PER ACT 8770, OMB PROCESS RELEASED FOR THE FULL $25 MILLION.

HOWEVER, ONLY $2.5 MILLION HAS BEEN PAID TO DATE.

>> NONE OF THE $25 MILLION APPROPRIATED FOR RETRO WAGES HAD BEEN PAID FOR THE CLOSE OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

AND THERE WERE NO APPROPRIATIONS FOR WAGES.

PROTESTERS WERE BACK IN FRONT OF GOVERNMENT HOUSE ON ST. CROIX AS THEY HAD BEEN IN 2019.

THIS TIME, TO CALL ON THE BROKEN PROMISES OF RETROACTIVE WAGES.

>> THE LEGISLATURE FAILED TO PUT MONEY IN THE BUDGET FOR THE RETIREES TO GET PAID MONEY THEY ARE OWED FROM 1990.

THE $23 MILLION FROM LAST YEAR.

THE BUDGET WENT DOWN THIS YEAR.

THEY GOT NO MONEY IN IT.

HE PULLED THE $25 MILLION FOR THIS YEAR.

$8 MILLION THAT HE OWED THE RETIREES.

>> LAWMAKERS MOVED FORWARD A BILL TO RAISE THE LEGAL AGE FOR PURCHASING TOBACCO PRODUCTS FROM 18 TO 21.

THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, HOSPITALS AND HUMAN SERVICES ON OCTOBER 2nd, APPROVED BILL 35-0289, AIMING TO ALIGN LOCAL LAW WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

THE CHANGE IS EXPECTED TO REDUCE ACCESS TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS FOR TEENS AND YOUNG ADULTS.

A GROUP SEEN AS PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE TO NICOTINE ADDICTION.

THAT´S ACCORDING TO THE BILL´S SPONSOR.

>> NICOTINE ADDICTION IS PARTICULARLY STRONG IN ADOLESCENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS, AS THEIR BRAINS ARE STILL DEVELOPING, MAKING THEM MORE VULNERABLE TO ITS EFFECTS THAN ADULTS.

RAISING THE AGE AT WHICH YOUNG PEOPLE FIRST TRY OR BEGIN USING TOBACCO CAN HELP REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF NICOTINE ADDICTION.

>> HEALTH OFFICIALS VOWED SUPPORT FOR THE MEASURE, HIGHLIGHTING ITS POTENTIAL TO LOWER SMOKELE INITIATION RATES AND LONG-TERM HEALTH ISSUES.

>> YOUR TOBACCO-RELATED ILLNESSES WOULD RESULT IN HEALTHIER COMMUNITIES AND LONG-TERM CUTS.

>> THE DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS BACKED THE BILL, WITH A FEDERAL AGE REQUIREMENT THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED NATIONWIDE IN 2019.

>> THIS LEGISLATION, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS TOBACCO 21 OR T-21, WAS RECOGNIZED THE CRITICAL STEP OF KEEPING TOBACCO PRODUCTS OUT OF YOUNG PEOPLE.

SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF T-21, THE FDA HAS CONDUCTED COMPLIANCE CHEX ON BUSINESSES ACROSS THE TERRITORY, RESULTING IN SOME 392 WARNING LETTERS OR CITATIONS, SOME WITH CIVIL PENALTIES.

AMENDING THE LOCAL STATUTE TO ALIGN WITH FEDERAL LAW, WOULD PROTECT THE YOUTH WITH THE DANGERS OF NICOTINE ADDICTION, AND PREVENT LONG-TERM ISSUES, CURB ACCESS TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PROVIDE ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO THE TERRITORY.

>> IF THE BILL PASSES, THE LCA WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INFORMING AND EDUCAING THE TERRITORIES, TOBACCO RESALERS ABOUT THE LAW, ENFORCING EFFORTS AND UPDATING SIGNAGE REQUIREMENT TO REFLECT THE NEW AGE RESTRICTION OF 21.

>> THE CONSUMER OF CURRENT AFFAIRS DOES HAVE THE ENFORCEMENT CAPACITY TO DO THIS -- TO ADDRESS THIS MEASURE.

WE WORK VERY CLOSELY TOGETHER WITH THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT TEAM.

>> DURING A MEETING LAST MONTH, THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM WEIGHED IN ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CHANGE THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD.

BILL NUMBER 35-0537 AIMS TO REPLACE THE TWO BOARD MEMBERS NOMINATED BY THE LABOR COUNCIL, ONCE THEIR TERMS EXPIRE, WITH TWO ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, WHO MUST BE ELECTED THROUGH A PROCESS DETERMINED BY GERS.

ONE MUST BE A RESIDENCE OF ST. CROIX AND THE OTHER MUST BE A RESIDENT OF THE ST. THOMAS/ST.

JOHN DISTRICT.

IT ENSURES THAT ALL MEMBERS ACCEPT THE DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL, MEET QUALIFICATIONS, HAVING AT LEAST FIVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND A BACHELORS DEGREE IN FINANCE, LAW OR ACCOUNTING.

THIS REMOVED THE EXCEPTION THAT APPLIED TO THE LABOR COUNCIL APPOINTEES.

TRUSTEES WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION.

>> THE RETIREES ARE REPRESENTED.

IT WOULD BE HAVING THE ACTIVE MEMBERS REPRESENTING.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THE RETIREES, THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, TO BRING SOME PRIORITY TO THE ACTIVE -- >> HOWEVER, THE TRUSTEE, ANDRE DORSEY, WHO WAS APPOINTED TO THE BOARD THROUGH THE LABOR COUNCIL, OPPOSED THE BILL.

HE WARNED THAT THE CHANGE COULD ALLOW ANY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, EVEN HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS, LIKE THE GOVERNOR´S CHIEF OF STAFF, TO OCCUPY SEATS ON THE BOARD, DIMINISHING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE GRSE EMPLOYEES.

HE BELIEVED THE COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN.

>> YOU WANT THE CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL TO NOT HAVE A NICKEL OR A DIME IN THIS PROCESS.

THEY REPRESENT A CERTAIN SEGMENT OF THIS POPULATION.

ATTACKING THE UNIONIZED EMPLOYEES.

>> THE BOARD VOTED 3-1, IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THE BILL, WITH THE TRUSTEES VOTING IN FAVOR.

DORSEY OPPOSING.

AND LAGGER AND RUSSELL ABSENT.

>>> JOINING ME ON-SET TO PROVIDE INSIGHT ON THESE ISSUES, ARE JUSTIN HARRIGAN AND CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, MELANIE TURNBULL.

THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> YOU´RE WELCOME.

>> AND FROM OUR ST. CROIX STUDIO, LET´S WELCOME JAMIL RUSSELL, HOST OF "JUST JAMILAH."

>> GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> BEFORE WE DIVE INTO THE TOP ICES OF THE DAY, I WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU FOLLOW CLOSELY.

IS THIS A PROBLEM FOR ALL OF THE NONPROFITS IN THE TERRITORY, THAT RELY ON GOVERNMENT FUNDING LIKE CATHOLIC CHARITIES?

>> UNFORTUNATELY, YOU HEARD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE.

YES, IT IS AN ISSUE.

HOWEVER, I THINK THAT THERE´S MORE TO THE ISSUE.

WHEN YOU CREATE A NONPROFIT, IT IS THE EXPECTATION THAT THE NONPROFIT WILL DO SOME LEVEL OF REVENUE GENERATION ON THEIR OWN.

WE FOUND AND WE HAVE SEEN THAT SOME NONPROFITS HAVE BECOME WHOLLY AND TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT RESOURCES TO SURVIVE.

THEY GO FOR PRIVATE DONORS AND PUBLIC SPONSORS AND THE LIKE.

LIKE MISS SHILLINGFORD SAID.

DONATIONS OF FOOD ITEMS IF THEY HAVE A FOOD DRIVE.

THERE´S NOT A REAL INCOME PRODUCING MEASURES THAT THE NONPROFITS DO.

NONPROFITS PLAY AN IMPORTANT PART IN THAT THEY PROVIDE A SUPPLEMENT TO GOVERNMENT SERVICE THAT GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROVIDE.

AND THEY´RE NEEDED.

IN THE CONVERSATION, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION WHERE THESE JOHN PROFITS DO SOME LEVEL OF FUND-RAISING FOR THE ORGANIZATION AND GO AFTER GRANT OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE PROVIDED TO NONPROFITS ACROSS THE NATION.

>> I HEAR YOU ON THAT.

ATTORNEY TURNBULL, DO YOU THINK THE REPEATED DELAYS IN GETTING LOCAL FUNDING TO NONPROFITS YEAR AFTER YEAR, SAYS WHERE THE PRIORITIES OF THE ADMINISTRATION LIE?

>> TO BE CANDID, I DON´T KNOW IF IT SHOWS A PRIORITY WITH THE ADMINISTRATION LIES AS MUCH AS WHERE THE ADMINISTRATION´S BANK ACCOUNT IS.

WHEN YOU HAVE A SITUATION LIKE THAT, THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WILL BE LOOKING TO TAKE CARE OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FIRST, RATHER THAN AUXILIARY ORGANIZATIONS.

THESE ORGANIZATIONS, WHEN YOU´RE NOTICING A PATTERN OF THIS DELAY, IT WOULD BEHOOVE THEM TO PUT MORE GOVERNMENT TO BRINGING ON A DIRECTOR OF FUND-RAISING, WHO IS FULL-TIME AND ONLY JOB IS TO FIND SOURCES OF REVENUE.

>> MR. HARRIGAN I WANT YOUR TAKE ON THIS.

WHY DO YOU THINK THIS HAPPENS YEAR AFTER YEAR?

>> WELL, THEY SEEM TO NOT CARE ABOUT THESE NONPROFITS.

I SEE THEM ON THE STREET.

CATHOLIC CHARITIES, THEY FEED PEOPLE EVERY DAY.

THERE´S QUITE A LINE.

THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO PAY MORE ATTENTION TOWARDS NONPROFITS AND ARE VIABLE THAT HELP FOLKS THAT DON´T HAVE A MARI MEANS TO HELP THEMSELVES.

>> WE´RE SEEING MAYBE HUMAN SERVICES MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FILL THE -- FILL THAT GAP.

>> THEY DO.

THEY DO GOOD WORK.

THERE´S SOMETHING THAT MISS SHILLINGFORD SAID THAT STUCK WITH ME.

IF THEY DON´T GET THE FUNDING, THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY WILL FEEL THE ABSENCE OF WHAT WE DO PROVIDE.

IT´S A VERY DELICATE BALANCE IN BEING ABLE TO RUN THE GOVERNMENT WITH THE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR YOU.

AND THE SAME WITH NONPROFITS THAT DO VITAL WORK FOR SOCIETY.

>> I HEAR THAT.

LET´S LOOK AT ANOTHER CRUCIAL ISSUE IMPACTING OUR COMMUNITY.

OUTSTANDING RETRO PAYMENTS.

MR. HARRIGAN, YOU WERE PART OF THE LEGISLATURE WHEN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SAID OVER $300 MILLION WAS OWED.

THE DEBT HAS DECREASED, RIGHT?

BUT DID THE ADMINISTRATION MAKE TOO LARGE OF A PROMISE TO REPAY THE RETIREES THESE FUNDS?

>> I DON´T KNOW IF THEY MADE TOO BIG OF A PROMISE.

IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION WAS OWED TO THE EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES.

THEY SHOULD MAKE SOME EFFORT TO BRING THAT DEBT DOWN?

AND THAT JUST -- LET IT ROLLS DOWN THE ROAD.

THEY SHOULD MAKE EFFORTS TO PAY THE BILLS.

>> I THINK THE ISSUE IS SOMETHING THAT PREDATES MANY OF US.

THIS IS A GENERATIONAL ISSUE.

IS THE GOVERNMENT JUSTIFIED IN PRIORITIZING IMMEDIATE EXPENSES DURING A CASH CRUNCH, WHILE PAYING ONLY A FRACTION OF APPROPRIATED PAYMENTS?

>> YOU WANT THE LEGISLATURE TO PAY OUT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

WE MUST RECOGNIZE IF THE GOVERNMENT DOESN´T MAKE GOOD ON THEIR BIWEEKLY PAYROLL COSTS, YOU WOULD HAVE LESS PAYDAYS.

IT´S THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE AND THE DIRECTOR OF OMB AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL TEAM, THEY MEET AND DISCUS WHAT IS COLLECTED.

THE BUDGET IS BUILT ON ANTICIPATED REVENUE.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO COLLECT THE MONEY.

THE MONEY HAS TO BE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO BE SPENT.

IF THE GOVERNMENT ISN´T COLLECTING THE MONEY THAT´S OWED, YOU HAVE TO MANAGE THE CASH THAT YOU HAVE ON-HAND.

THEY´RE GOING TO MANAGE THE CASH TO COVER PRIORITY NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS MEETING THE PAYROLL OBLIGATIONS EVERY TWO WEEKS.

OVER HOW THE GOVERNMENT SPENDS MONEY.

BUT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES GET THEIR PAYCHECKS EVERY TWO WEEKS.

AND THE SHORT ANSWER TO THAT -- THE SHORT ANSWER TO THAT IS, WE WISH WE COLLECTED REVENUES AND WE HAD THE MONEY IN THE BANK TO PAY OUT.

IT APPEARS THERE´S A CASH MANAGEMENT ISSUE AT HAND.

>> YEAH.

ATTORNEY TURNBULL, DO YOU THINK IT´S FAIR THE CRITICISM THE BRYAN ADMINISTRATION IS RECEIVING FOR THE BROKEN PROMISES AND COMING IN AND MEETING THIS SET AND GET THE FUNDS?

ESPECIALLY WE´RE HEARING ON SOME OF THE MONEY ISSUES THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS HAVING.

>> WELL, THE BUCK ALWAYS STOPS AT THE TOP, RIGHT?

IT´S NOT OKAY FOR SOMEONE TO SAY, WELL, THIS PROBLEM HAS BEEN HERE FOREVER.

IT´S GOING TO BE EVERY, SINGLE PERSON´S JOB THAT WE ELECT, TO SOLVE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS.

I DO THINK THERE´S SOME UNFAIRNESS AS FAR AS THOUGH NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE.

THEY CREATED THE RETIREES PORTAL IN THIS ADMINISTRATION.

THEY HAVE PAID THEM.

THEY PAID $4.7 MILLION LAST YEAR.

THERE ARE STEPS WE HEARD ABOUT THE $2.5 MILLION THEY PAID.

I THINK BECAUSE IT´S NOT COMING IN LARGE CHUNKS OF $25 MILLION AND $40 MILLION THAT WAS PROMISED, IT KIND OF GIVES THE APPEARANCE AS THOUGH NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE.

SO, SOME OF IT IS UNFAIR.

I THINK WHEN YOU´RE A LEADER, AND YOU MAKE A PROMISE AND YOU CAN´T FULFILL IT, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE BACKLASH THAT COMES YOUR WAY.

>> MR. HARRIGAN, YOU WERE IN THE LEGISLATURE.

THE LEGISLATURE APPOINTS THE FUNDS.

THEY APPOINTED THE $25 MILLION.

THE GOVERNMENT CHOSE TO PAY OUT THAT $2 MILLION AND USE THE REMAINING FOR ANYTHING ELSE.

AS A FORMER LAWMAKER, WHEN YOU HEAR THAT, WHAT DOES THAT SAY TO YOU?

>> IT MEANS THE LEGISLATURE, THE SENATORS HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO HOW THE MONEYS ARE BEING SPENT.

ONCE YOU ALLOCATE THE MONEY, IT SHOULD BE SPENT ON THE PURPOSE OTHER THAN SOMETHING THAT´S IMPORTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATION, VERSUS THE PEOPLE THAT ARE OWED MONEY.

>> BEFORE WE CONTINUE, JAMILA, I WANT TO GO BACK TO YOU.

WHAT DO YOU THINK CAN BE DONE TO ASSURE THAT THE FUNDS ARE APPROPRIATED PAYMENTS -- THEY ARE GIVEN TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE OWED?

>> THE LEGISLATURE ALLOCATES THE FUND.

AND THE APPROPRIATIONS COME ON WHAT YOU ANTICIPATE YOU´RE GOING TO COLLECT IN REVENUE.

WHAT HAPPENS IS REVENUES NEED TO BE COLLECTED.

AFTER REVENUES ARE COLLECTED, THE DIRECTOR OF OMB ALLOCATES THE FUNDS FOR USAGE.

IT´S NOT ON LEGISLATURE STAYING ON TOP OF HOW MONEY IS SPENT.

THE PROBLEM EXISTS IN THE COLLECTION OF REVENUES.

IF YOU DON´T COLLECT THE MONEY.

YOU CAN HAVE THE MONEY ON PAPER BUT YOU CAN´T PAY THE BILLS.

THAT´S THE ISSUE, THE COLLECTION OF GOVERNMENT REVENUES IN THOSE REVENUE CATEGORIES THAT YOU ANTICIPATE YOU´RE GOING TO COLLECT REVENUES FROM.

THAT´S PROPERTY TAXES.

ANY TAXES THE GOVERNMENT CAN GENERATE REVENUES FROM TAXES OR BOND ISSUANCES OR CHARGING FEES.

IF YOU´RE NOT PAYING THE BUSINESS LICENSE FEES, IF YOU´RE NOT PAYING YOUR TAXES, THE GOTT DOESN´T HAVE THE MONEY TO BE ABLE TO THEN PAY ITS EXPENSES.

>> I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE HEARD THAT WE DO HAVE A COLLECTIONS PROBLEM, WITH THE GOVERNMENT, AS WELL, TOO.

LARGELY, BEFORE WE CONTINUE, I WANT TO ASK YOU, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN A GENERATIONAL ISSUE, DO YOU THINK AT ANY POINT IN TIME, THE GOVERNMENT WILL EVER, YOU KNOW, TRULY BE ABLE TO GET UP TO DATE ON PAYING THESE RETROACTIVE PAYMENTS?

>> IT DEPENDS ON, YOU KNOW, WHO IS IN LEADERSHIP AND WHAT THE PRIORITIES ARE.

WE HAD A LARGE INFLUX OF MEN WHERE YOU CAN HAVE BACK FILLED THE BUDGET FOR VARIOUS PROJECTS.

YOU COULD HAVE BEEN CREATIVE WITH REVENUES THAT COME IN.

IT DEPENDS ON THE PRIORITY OF WHO SITS IN GOVERNMENT HOUSE.

THE GOVERNOR HAS HIS PRIORITIES.

HE HAS HIS AGENDA.

AND I THINK IT´S A PROBLEM THAT CAN BE SOLVED.

NO PROBLEM IS SOLVED OVERNIGHT.

THERE ISN´T ANYTHING IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS WE CAN´T ACCOMPLISH WITH HARD WORK AND BEING DETERMINED AND HAVE THAT BE A PRIORITY.

IT NEEDS -- EVERYBODY NEEDS TO COME TO THE TABLE AND DETERMINE THIS IS A PRIORITY AND WORK TOWARDS GETTING IT DONE.

>> I WANT TO ASK YOU, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE GOVERNOR OR ADMINISTRATION CAN DO TO RESTORE THAT TRUST?

YOU WEREN´T ABLE TO FULFILL YOUR WORD.

>> I THINK, WHAT YOU SAID, BY FULFILLING THEIR WORD.

THE ONLY WAY TO GAIN TRUST IS TO MAKE A PROMISE AND KEEP IT.

SO, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, I THINK THE BEST PATH FORWARD WOULD BE TO MAKE CONSERVATIVE PROMISES.

PROMISES THAT YOU KNOW AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU CAN FULFILL.

IT ALL GOES BACK TO WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN SAYING.

IF THEY DON´T HAVE THE MONEY IN THE ACCOUNT, THERE´S NOT MUCH THEY CAN DO.

IT´S A TRIAGING PROCESS.

IT SEEMS THAT RETROACTIVE PAY NEVER MEETS THE TRIAGE.

>> I WANT TO TURN, NOW -- YOU HAVE THAT LAW BACKGROUND.

WE´RE SEEING LEGISLATION TO CHANGE THE TOBACCO AGE FROM HERE IN THE TERRITORY FROM 18 TO 21.

COMING IN LINE WITH FEDERAL STANDARDS.

BUT WE´RE NOT CHANGING THE ALCOHOL LAW FROM 18 TO 21.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT?

>> I THINK A LOT OF WENT INTO CHANGING THE NICOTINE RATHER THAN ALCOHOL -- IT´S ECONOMICAL.

ONE, WE SEE ALL OF THE HEALTH DISADVANTAGES OF SMOKING AND HAVING VAPING AND THE NEW MECHANISMS THEY HAVE GEARED TOWARDS YOUNGER CHILDREN.

THERE´S A LOT OF RESEARCH ON HOW NICOTINE IS JUST CANCEROUS.

THERE´S NO BENEFITS TO IT.

SO, IT´S AN EASIER SELL TO SAY WE WILL BUMP IT UP TO 21.

I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE IF THEY DID ECONOMICAL STUDIES AS FAR AS THE VARIOUS RETAILERS HERE AND IF IT HAS IMPACT ON OUR SALES WITH TOURISM BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE´RE DUTY-FREE.

A LOT OF PEOPLE COME TO BUY PRODUCTS IN BULK.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.

IT WAS AN EASIER SELL BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH BENEFITS.

I THINK ALCOHOL IS DIFFERENT.

I THINK THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT ALCOHOL IS SAFER AND PEOPLE COME DOWN HERE BECAUSE WE ARE OPEN CONTAINER, OPEN CARRY JURISDICTION.

I THINK THERE WOULD BE A LOT MORE PUSHBACK ON ANY KIND OF BILL FOR THAT.

IN ORDER FOR THE BILL TO WORK, IT IS ENFORCEMENT.

I WAS HAPPY TO HEAR THE ACTING COMMISSIONER SAY THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE ENFORCING THIS NEW REQUIREMENT.

IT´S IN LINE WITH ALL THE OTHER THINGS.

IT MAKES SENSE.

TO BE HONEST, I THINK WE DO A GOOD JOB AS FAR AS NICOTINE IS CONCERNED IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.

I JUST WENT TO EUROPE AND I FORGOT THAT PEOPLE SMOKE CIGARETTES.

I SMELLED CIGARETTE SMOKE EVERYWHERE.

HERE IS NOT AS BAD.

THIS IS ONE MORE STEP TO PUT A NAIL IN THE COFFIN.

>> SENATOR HARRIGAN, IF YOU WON THE LEGISLATURE, WOULD YOU BE A SUPPORTER OF UPPING THE AGE?

>> I WOULD.

>> MOVING TO ALCOHOL, WHY DO YOU THINK WE KEPT THE LEGAL AGE AT 18 IN THE TERRITORY, RATHER THAN 21 AS IT IS IN THE MAINLAND?

>> IT´S ECONOMICS.

I WOULD FIGURE WITH THE TOBACCO, YOU HAVE A LOT OF PUSHBACK FROM THE MERCHANTS.

BUT I HAVEN´T HEARD OF IT.

AND THE ALCOHOL, IT IS PART OF WHAT PEOPLE COME HERE FOR.

IT IS NOT AS INJURIOUS TO ONE ONE´S HEALTH AS TOBACCO IS.

I USED TO BE A SMOKER.

>> REALLY?

>> I WENT INTO THE ARMY AND I SMOKED FOR A LITTLE WHILE.

AND I CAME BACK AND I NEVER SMOKED AGAIN.

I NEVER MISSED IT.

BUT THE DRINK, EVERY ONCE AND A WHILE, YOU STOP BY FOR A DRINK.

I THINK WITH THE TOBACCO, IT´S OKAY FOR NOW.

MAYBE THE DRINK, THEY RAISE IT UP TO 19 OR 20.

>> DO YOU THINK AT ANY POINT IN THE TERRITORY, WE´RE GOING TO INCREASE THAT LEGAL DRINKING AGE FROM 18 TO 21?

>> WELL, I DON´T THINK THERE´S EVER BEEN ANY STUDY THAT´S DONE THAT SAYS PEOPLE COME TO THE VIRGIN ISLANDS BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR LEGAL DRINKING AGE IS 18.

THAT´S AN ADDED PLUS.

THEY FIND OUT WHEN THEY GET HERE.

I THINK ALL OF THE PROMOTION, ESPECIALLY FROM THE TOURISM SECTOR, WE MARKET OURSELVES AS SUN, SAND AND BEACH.

I´VE NEVER SEEN US HAVE A MARKETING CAMPAIGN THAT SAYS, COME TO THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, YOU CAN DRINK AT 18.

THAT BEING SAID, IT WAS MYOPIC OF THE PROPONENTS OF THE LEGISLATURE, OF THE LEGISLATION, NOT TO HAVE JUST DONE ONE FELL SWOOP WHERE YOU ADDRESS ALL OF THESE ISSUES.

WE HAVE SEEN IN THE TERRITORIES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE LOST FAMILY MEMBERS TO DRUNK DRIVES.

I NEVER HEARD OF ANYBODY LOSING THEIR LIFE -- SOMEBODY SMOKING A CIGARETTE.

THE HARM THAT PEOPLE WHO SMOKE IS TO THEMSELVES AND TO THOSE PEOPLE MAY LIVE IN THE IMMEDIATE HOUSEHOLD OR HAVE SECOND-HAND CONTACT TO TOBACCO.

HOWEVER, DRUNK DRIVERS KILL AND HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO KILL AND HARM EXTENDS FAR BEYOND THEMSELVES.

ALSO, I THINK, SOMETIMES, IT´S AN ELECTION YEAR.

PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE LEGISLATION, TO CAMPAIGN UPON.

YOU KNOW, JUST RECENTLY, THE LEGISLATURE AMENDED THE CANNABIS USE, THE ADULT CANNABIS USE ACT, THAT RAISED THE ACCESS OF CANNABIS PRODUCTS FROM 18 TO 21.

THAT COULD HAVE BEEN TACKED ON A SIMPLE AMENDMENT.

SOMETIMES WE SQUANDER GOVERNMENT RESOURCES FOR THE SAKE OF HAVING A SOUND BYTE AND FOR HAVING A BILL THAT REMAINS ATTACHED AS THE PRIMARY SPONSOR.

I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO RAISE THE DRINKING AGE IN THE TERRITORY AND JUST, YOU KNOW, FOR THE SAKE AND THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF ALL, HAVE ALL OF THE RESOURCES BE AVAILABLE AT 21, NOT AT 18.

>> I HEAR YOU ON THAT.

MOVING TO GRS.

THE PROPOSAL TO HAVE ACTIVE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

I WANT TO ASK YOU SENATOR HARRIGAN, TO ELECT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES SIMILAR TO HOW THE RETIREES ELECT THEIR REPRESENTATIVE.

WHAT´S YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT?

>> I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO ALLOW SOME OF THE PERSONS TO BE ON THE BOARD.

>> I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I THINK TRUSTEE DORSEY VIEWED IT AS AN ATTACK ON THE UNIONS.

DO YOU THINK IT´S AN ATTACK ON THE UNIONS?

>> I DON´T THINK SO.

NO.

IT´S GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHER MEMBERS TO HAVE A SAY.

THEY SHOULD HAVE THE PERSONS BEING AFFECTED BY THE SYSTEM TO HAVE A SAY.

>> YOU KNOW, ATTORNEY TURNBULL, ONE OF THE THINGS ALSO WAS JUST ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT NOW IF, SAY, THE GOVERNOR´S CHIEF OF STAFF NOW, WILL BE ABLE TO -- WILL BE ABLE TO RUN TO BE ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES.

WE´RE LOOKING AT THE QUALIFICATIONS, AS WELL, TOO, NOW.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS?

DO YOU THINK IT´S GOING TO MAYBE HELP BETTER SHAPE WHAT THE BOARD LOOKS LIKE?

>> I THINK IT WILL DEFINITELY NARROW, I THINK, WHAT THE BOARD LOOKS LIKE.

THOSE ARE SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS THEY HAVE LISTED OUT IN THE BILL.

SO, I THINK IT CREATES A SITUATION IN WHICH INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE A DIRECT INTEREST IN THE GRS BOARD AND THE GRS OUTCOMES, MAY NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE AT THE SEAT.

AT THE SAME TIME, BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF WHAT GRS ENTAILS IN INVESTMENTS AND MAKING DECISIONS FOR THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT, I THINK IT´S IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO HAVE A SIMILAR SKILL SET AND EXPERIENCE THAT IS LISTED -- SOME OF THE SKILL SETS, I DIDN´T SEE HOW THEY WERE TRANSLATIBLE AT ALL, TO BEING ON THE GRS BOARD.

BUT IT SEEMED LIKE GET AS MUCH EDUCATED PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND THROW THEM ON THE BOARD, EVEN THOUGH THE SKILL SETS DON´T FIT COMPLETELY.

IF YOU´RE IN MEDICINE OR REAL ESTATE, AND I´M FINDING IT HARD TO FIGURE OUT WHY SOMEONE WOULD MAKE A BETTER CANDIDATE.

>> DO YOU THINK NOW HAVING THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SIMILAR BACKGROUNDS SHUTS IT OFF FROM SOMEONE THAT MAY HAVE A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE AND FROM THE OUTSIDE EXPERIENCE.

MAYBE, ON-THE-JOB EXPERIENCE, RATHER THAN GOING TO SCHOOL.

YOU CAN GET THAT SAME EDUCATION IN THE WORKFORCE.

>> YOU CAN.

BUT IT´S REALLY TOUGH.

I THINK THAT THE GRS BOARD BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY DEAL WITH, I, AS A GRS RETIREE OR ACTIVE MEMBER, WOULD WANT THE DECISIONMAKERS TO HAVE A CERTAIN BASELINE LEVEL OF QUALIFICATION AND SKILL SET.

UNFORTUNATELY, THAT DOES PRECLUDE A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO BE ON THE BOARD.

I DON´T THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE PRECLUDED EVERYONE.

THAT´S THE ISSUE I TAKE WITH THE CHANGES IN THE BILL.

>> JAMILA, DO YOU THINK THE PROPOSED CHANGES CAN REDUCE THE INFLUENCE OF RANK AND FILE WORKERS IN PENSION DECISIONS?

>> I THINK A COUPLE OF THINGS WITH THE LEGISLATION.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, I DON´T THINK NECESSARILY THAT FOR CLARIFICATION, NOT ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE MEMBERS OF THE UNION.

I DON´T THINK THERE MUST BE UNION REPRESENTATIVES ON THE BOARD.

THAT´S ONE.

NUMBER TWO, EDUCATION DOES NOT EQUATE TO INTELLIGENCE.

WHILE SOMEBODY MAY HAVE A PIECE OF PAPER, IT DOESN´T TRANSLATE TO MAKING SOUND, RATIONAL, INTELLIGENT DECISIONS.

TWO.

THREE, I THINK THAT HAVING EMPLOYEES ELECT MEMBERS, IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO.

HOWEVER, I DO THINK THERE MUST BE A BASELINE.

THE BASELINE CANNOT BE A PIECE OF PAPER.

IT MUST ENCOMPASS QUALIFICATIONS THAT INCLUDE EXPERIENCES.

FOR THE RECORD, THE GRS HAS ACTUARIES AND CONSULTANTS.

THE BOARD DOESN´T HAVE TO HAVE THE NECESSARY EXPERIENCE IN INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO OR IN, YOU KNOW, ACTUARIES COMING UP WITH SCENARIOS.

THEY PAY CONSULTANTS TO COME UP WITH THAT.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE COMMON SENSE WHETHER DETERMINING WHAT YOU ARE DECIDING MAKES SENSE.

AND MAKE A REASONABLE DECISION WITH THE INFORMATION YOU´RE PROVIDED.

THEY DON´T DO THE WORK.

THEY HAVE CONSULTANTS THAT DO THE WORK FOR THEM.

TYING IT TO A DEGREE IN A SPECIFIC FIELD LIMITS THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE VERY QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE THAT IS REQUIRED TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS TO SERVE ON THE BOARD.

>> BRIEFLY, LET ME ASK YOU -- DO YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE SAFEGUARDS PUT IN PLACE FOR HIGH HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS FROM SKEWING THE MAKEUP OF THE BOARDS?

>> I THINK HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS PAINTED THE GRS SYSTEM.

I WORK IN THE LEGISLATURE.

I TELL PEOPLE, YOU CAN´T MAKE LEGISLATION FOR WHO CURRENTLY SITS.

YOU HAVE TO THINK OF THE GREATER GOOD.

THE HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS, THEY PAY INTO THE GRS SYSTEM.

THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THEIR INVESTMENT IS SOUND, AS WELL.

THEY DON´T WANT THE GRS SYSTEM TO GO BELLY-UP.

I DON´T THINK SERVING ON THE BOARD IS RATIONAL OR SOUND.

>> I WANT TO REVISIT AN ISSUE WE COVERED ON PREVIOUS ISSUES.

THIS IS UNREGULATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN THE TERRITORY.

WE FEATURED OWNERS ON PAST SHOWS.

AND WITH BOTH ACKNOWLEDGING THEY OPERATE WITHOUT A LICENSE DUE TO GAPS IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

RECENTLY, THE OWNER OF VI UBER WAS SIGN TENSED BY LICENSING AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS.

WE RECORDED THE ENCOUNTER -- HE RECORDED THE ENCOUNTER AND POSTED IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

WE´RE GOING TO PLAY A PORTION OF THAT RECORDING NOW.

>> YEAH.

I PULL UP AND I GOT TO DEAL WITH THESE DUDES.

THEY´RE GOING TO WRITE A CITATION.

THAT MAN IS CRAZY.

>> THIS HERE IS YOURS.

IF YOU HAVE THE TEMPERATURE AND THE DATE HERE.

>> IT WAS NEVER STOPPED.

WHETHER IT´S ME OR THEM.

OR IT´S A RIDER.

THE RESOLUTION WAS NEVER STOPPED.

IT´S SOMETHING I DON´T HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

>> THE GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.

IT CREATES THE DEPARTMENT.

THE JOB IS -- A CHECK FOR EVERYBODY ON THE SITE.

I´M NOT GOING TO GETTING THE PROBLEM UNTIL I WILL DEAL WITH THE SITUATION.

I DON´T WANT TO DEAL WITH IT.

>> I´M GRATEFUL I SPOKE WITH YOU.

>> GUESS WHAT?

HOW MANY TIMES I COME IN?

>> IT´S A -- [ BLEEP ].

>> A $500 PENALTY?

>> I NEED TO KNOW.

>> $500 PENALTY.

>> IT´S CLOSED.

>> IN THE BACK?

>> YES.

>> NO, IN THE FRONT.

>> MR. HARRIGAN, I WANT TO GO TO YOU.

WE´RE SEEING THIS CONVERSATION COMES TO A TAXI AND RIDE SHARE.

DO YOU THINK THE SLOW CREATION OF REGULATIONS, IN LETTING UNLICENSED SERVICES LIKE V.I.

UBER AND IS THAT ALLOWING THOSE BUSINESSES TO THRIVE?

>> IT IS.

AND IT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.

IF THEY´RE GOING TO OPERATE, THEY SHOULD HAVE A LICENSE.

THAT´S MY POSITION ON THAT.

>> SAME QUESTION TO YOU, ATTORNEY TURNBULL.

>> YES.

THE LIABILITY IS WHAT I´M THINKING ABOUT.

WHEN YOU´RE IN AN INDUSTRY AND YOU DON´T HAVE LICENSING, THERE´S REALLY NO -- THERE´S NOT A LOT OF RELIEF FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT MAY BE IN UTILIZING THE SERVICES.

AT THE SAME TIME, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GYPSY TAXI?

WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN COME INTO THE 21st CENTURY TO MAKE SURE WE ROLL OUT REGULATIONS IN A TIMELY FASHION.

WE SEE LEGISLATION PROPOSED.

AND THE REGULATION COMPONENT JUST LAGS AND LAGS BEHIND.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A V.I.

UBER OR V.I.

HAIL.

I WANT TO SEE THEM GET THE LICENSING.

I BELIEVE THAT WHAT THEY WOULD CAPTURE, COMPARED TO GYPSY TAXI.

I GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF A GYPSY TAXI.

THAT´S NOT A COMPANY OR AN ORGANIZATION WITH A BROAD REACH.

JUST A QUICK REFERENCE.

BECAUSE OF THE BROAD REACH, I BELIEVE THAT THE REGULATIONS SHOULD BE PROMULGATED TO HAVE THE LICENSES FOR THE ORGANIZATIONS.

>> I WANT TO ASK YOU -- WE SAW IN THE CLIP, FORMER SENATOR NELLY O´REILLY THAT WAS THERE.

WHAT DO YOU THINK HER PRESENCE THERE SAYS MAYBE ABOUT HER PUBLIC IMAGE AND HER POSSIBLE CHANCES FOR HER RISING CAMPAIGN THAT SHE IS GOING WITH?

>> I DON´T HAVE AN OPINION ON HER PRESENCE THERE.

I´M NOT -- I´M NOT SURE WHAT HER ANGLE WAS.

I DON´T WANT TO OPEN ON THAT.

>> JAMILA, I´M GOING TO ASK YOU TO SPECULATE.

ON THE SITUATION, COULD IT HURT HER WRITE-IN CAMPAIGN GIVEN HIS BEHAVIOR?

>> I MEAN, IN OUR DISTRICT, SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, WE LIKE THE RAH-RAH.

HOWEVER, IT SENDS A MESSAGE TO ME, AS SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO BE A LAWMAKER, THAT YOU´RE NOT CONCERNED WITH MAKING SURE THAT LAWS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST ARE COMPLIED WITH.

THE LAW NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.

THAT´S THE 35th LEGISLATURE, I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN A PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS SOME ISSUES OF WHAT´S HAPPENING IN THE TAXI CAB COMMISSION.

THE PROPER WAY TO DO THAT IS TO LOBBY.

IF YOU WANT TO ALLOW CHANGE AND YOU WANT AN INDUSTRY INTRODUCED, YOU DON´T GO TO THE TAXI CAB COMMISSION.

YOU LOBBY THE LAWMAKERS TO SAY, WE MAKE THIS AMENDMENT TO THE LAWS THAT WE IS OPERATE LEGALLY AND HAVE THAT AMENDMENT SO REGULATIONS CAN BE ADOPTED TO MANAGE THE INDUSTRY.

WHAT HAPPENS NOW, IS THAT YOU HAVE A LIABILITY ISSUE.

IF THEY GET IN AN ACCIDENT, IF YOU GET ISSUED USING THEIR SERVICES, WHAT INSURANCE IS GOING TO PAY?

IF THEY´RE OPERATING AN ILLEGAL BUSINESS, ABSENCE OF LAW, THEY ARE OPERATING ILLEGALLY.

I BELIEVE THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

UNTIL THE ISSUE IS ADDRESSED, YOU LOBBY.

THAT´S WHAT PEOPLE DO IN CONGRESS.

YOU LOBBY TO CHANGE A LAW.

YOU DON´T OPERATE OUTSIDE OF THE LAW BECAUSE A LAW DOESN´T EXIST.

>> BECAUSE A LAW DOESN´T EXIST, HOW IS THAT AFFECTING ENFORCEMENT?

>> I THINK THE DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS CAN FIGHT THEM FOR OPERATING WITHOUT A BUSINESS LICENSE.

THEY HAVE TO BE CREATIVE IN HOW THEY FINE THEM.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE MUST BE SOME PENALTY FOR NOT OBEYING THE CURRENT LAWS OF THE LAND.

AND YOU DON´T GET TO COME IN THE FIRST WAVE WHEN THIS GETS RULED OUT, IF IT GETS RULED OUT.

THERE MUST BE SOME PENALTY.

YOU CAN´T CONTINUE TO HAVE PEOPLE OPERATING OUTSIDE OF THE LAW AND YOU REWARD BAD BEHAVIOR.

IT SENDSES A BAD MESSAGE AND SENDS A BAD MESSAGE TO CHILDREN.

WE´RE A NATION OF LAWS AND LAWS NEED TO BE FOLLOWED.

>> MR. HARRIGAN, I WANT TO ASK YOU, DOES THE GOVERNMENT´S DELAY IN SETTING UP THE RIGHTS HERE OR GUIDELINES, REFLECT A PROBLEM ON THE BUSINESS NEEDS WE HAVE HERE IN THE TERRITORIES?

>> I WOULD THINK SO.

THE SITUATION COMES TO THE ATTENTION OF AUTHORITIES, THEY HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS LEGAL.

IF IT´S NOT, THEY HAVE TO GET RULES TO PROTECT THE RIDING PUBLIC.

AND NOT JUST TURN THEIR BACK.

IF YOU HAVE AN ACCIDENT, YOU NEED INSURANCE TO COVER THAT PERSON.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO ACT FASTER BECAUSE THE WAY THINGS ARE HAPPENING IN THE TERRITORIES.

PEOPLE ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF NOT HAVING A LAW.

I WOULD BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN DEALING WITH THESE SITUATIONS SITUATIONS.

>> ARE WE BEING LEFT BEHIND?

>> YES, IN THE SENSE OF RIDE SHARE, WE´RE BEING LEFT BEHIND.

I´M NOT SOMEBODY THAT´S A PROPONENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE IT IN A SPACE OR BECAUSE THEY HAVE IT WE HAVE TO HAVE IT, TOO.

I´M NOT ONE OF THOSE.

WITH THE PUSH IN THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR´S OFFICE, HAVING THE TRUCKS MOVING THROUGH THE YEARS AND DOING ALL OF THE MAPPING OF THE ADDRESSES, I THINK IT´S TIME FOR US TO HAVE RIDE SHARE.

AS THEY CO-PANELISTS HAVE SAID, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE MECHANISMS, RIGHT?

IF THERE´S AN ACCIDENT, IF A DRIVER DOES SOMETHING TO HARM AN ACCIDENT, WHERE DO YOU GET RELIEF?

HOW DO YOU GET RELIEF?

THE INDIVIDUALED RELIEF, YOU CAN´T.

WE DON´T KNOW WHAT TYPE OF INSURANCE THEY ARE CARRYING.

WE DON´T KNOW THE CAP OF INSURANCE.

IT´S ALMOST LIKE YOU´RE GETTING IN A CAR, GETTING IN AN ACCIDENT, WITH JUST A REGULAR CITIZEN IN THE COMMUNITY.

WE DON´T KNOW HOW MUCH COVERAGE THEY HAVE.

THE REASON YOU HAVE THE LAWS AND THE REGULATIONS IS BECAUSE WE CAN SET THE REGULATIONS TO CARRY PASSENGERS.

>> I´M CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT THE CONCH IS.

THAT´S ALL THE SHOW WE HAVE FOR TODAY.

TUNE IN NEXT SUNDAY FOR A NEW EPISODE OF "COME TO THE TERRITORY."

TUNE INTO YOUR WTJX NEWS FEED OR BY DOWNLOADING THE WTJX APP.

FOR ALL OF US HERE, TAKE CARE.

♫♫ >> THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THIS PROGRAM ARE NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF WTJX, ITS BOARD, STAFF OR UNDERWRITERS.