Senator Justin Harrigan Says Public Officials Can ‘Take’ Government Money When Hard Times Hit With The Intent Of Returning It

ST. CROIX — Senator Justin Harrigan, hailing from the island of St. Thomas, does not like a Sen. Kenneth Gittens-sponsored measure that aims to deter public officials from stealing government funds. First, the Democrat says the measure, only including top government officials, isn’t fair as it should cover all government employees. And even when Attorney General Claude Walker, invited to testify at the October 23 hearing at the Fritz E. Lawaetz Legislative Hall here, said that the Senate should move forward with the measure so that it works as a deterrent to those with thoughts of committing such acts, Mr. Harrigan disagreed.

“I don’t agree, but that’s your statement,” he said.

But, what was most striking about the senator’s comments during the hearing, was the moment he suggested — as if it was okay to steal public funds — that any senator could take government funds with the intent of returning those funds the following day.

“I have a very serious problem with this bill and the way it’s structured,” Mr. Harrigan said. “I don’t think it’s fair. Anyone of us could hit that bump in the road and decide we need to take some of the government’s money for the weekend and then we’re going to put it back the next day. So we must be very careful how we structure these pieces of legislation going forward.”

Following Mr. Harrigan’s comments, Mr. Gittens bucked.

“Regardless of what bump in the road, leave government money alone,” Mr. Gittens said. “If I hit a bump in the road, we live in a close-knit enough community to go to a family member to borrow money. But there ain’t no ifs or buts, public money is not an option.”

Mr. Gittens went on: “We don’t print money in the Virgin Islands, and our residents in public and private sectors work and pay taxes — known as public funds — which government officials are entrusted with. And when you put your trust in them, you don’t expect them to take from you.” Mr. Gittens said he agreed with Mr. Walker’s position that officials should think of the consequences before acting.

“When you get caught with your hands in the cookie jar, then you should bear the consequences. We as policy makers are to be prudent in our decisions,” he said.

While Mr. Harrigan’s comments stood out the most, a number of other senators also resisted the measure, including Senator Neville James, Senate president, and Senator Terrence “Positive” Nelson, a veteran lawmaker.

Mr. Nelson, who struggled to formulate words that would accurately represent his unease with the bill, said supporting the anti-corruption measure was difficult for him because it would not only affect the perpetrators, but also their families — including wife and children.

“If one individual is guilty, should the whole family be persecuted?” asked the veteran senator. “That’s my concern — it’s what happens to the family members. It’s one of those things that weigh heavily on my actions. I weigh my actions; not only as a public official,” Mr. Nelson said.

And Mr. James contended that the bill went too far.

“I’m not in the business of setting the example from the top, I am in the business of justice. I’m not in the business of doing things and passing legislation to give the public the impression that we’re doing something,” Mr. James said.

Mr. James, who won the public’s trust in the 2014 General Elections after being out of office for multiple years, added: “sometimes, we go too far.”

“Even this law,” he went on, “someone could say we are overdoing it. You have to make room to give people another chance; and you can’t pile on — after they’ve gone to jail for five years, for example — you can’t add to it by taking away everything else. You have to be careful with this type of legislation.”

Amidst the dissent, however, the measure received support from some lawmakers, including Senators Novelle Francis and especially Sen. Nereida Rivera-O’Reilly, who said the measure should be implemented because public officials should be held to a higher standard.

“We are not 20-year-old young men or women who slip through the cracks and make a mistake. We are grown, so you know what’s right and wrong. And some people make decisions knowing full well that if they get caught they would be landed in jail. All we are saying today is in addition to that, you would lose your pension — what the government pays; not your portion,” Mrs. Rivera-O’Reilly said.

She went on: “I get the concerns about piling on and whether we should suspend or forfeit completely and give room to rehabilitate, but I support the measure. The question here today is not whether it should be from the top to the bottom or vice versa, but rather are we going to hold accountable those who hold public office.

“Government employees are hired through personnel, but we are elected through the votes of the people. And it’s whether we are willing to hold ourselves to a higher standard — and we have to do so.

“About 29 states have already passed similar legislation, and about 9 others are [considering], so the question of constitutionality has been put to rest.”

Bill No. 31-0150 is an Act that would take away retirement benefits from government officials — including governors, lieutenant governors, commissioners, members of the Legislature, justices of the territory’s Supreme Court, judges and magistrate judges of the Superior Court and other elected and appointed officials — who have been convicted of a crime or crimes involving public corruption.

The measure was held in committee after a motion by Mr. Francis was successful. The motion was supported by  Senator Jean Forde. Senators Francis, Forde, Harrigan, James and Gittens voted in the affirmative. Senators Rivera-O’Reilly and Janette Millin Young were absent.

Feature Image: Senator Justin Harrigan, Sr. 

Image Credit: 31st Legislature.