ST. CROIX — At-Large Sen. Angel Bolques Jr., in correspondence to Senate President Milton Potter that was sent to all senators, formally objected to the amendment the 36th Legislature of the Virgin Islands approved last Thursday to a resolution suspending him without pay for 30 working days, with 15 days held in abeyance.
WTJX obtained the August 15 letter that was also sent to the Legislature’s chief legal counsel, in which Bolques argued the amendment imposed a suspension related to an ethical matter that had already been fully adjudicated, resolved, and conclusively settled through a mutually agreed-upon stipulated settlement agreement. He suggested the Legislature lacked the authority to unilaterally impose additional sanctions beyond those negotiated under the agreement.
The senator claims that the agreement, ratified by the Committee on Ethical Conduct on July 24, included a single administrative sanction: a letter of reprimand to remain on record for six months, with automatic expungement thereafter.
In response to Bolques’ formal challenge, Senator Alma Francis Heyliger fired back an email also obtained by WTJX describing Bolques as “the most vile and bold” senator she has come across to date. She noted that Bolques still had the audacity to object to the resolution offered against him during legislative session despite escaping full accountability due to a technicality in the body’s rules.
“But this is exactly what happens when individuals like you are allowed to act without consequence,” Heyliger wrote. “It fosters arrogance and a complete disregard for the ethical standards we are all expected to uphold.”
She blasted his attempt to backtrack on a decision that was already made by the majority of senators while promising to defend herself, the victim, and the Legislature. She suggested his action was not just “disgraceful,” but an insult to the legislative process and to every member who took that vote seriously.
“I will not be silent,” Heyliger wrote. “I will not allow you to spin a false narrative. The damage has been done, and I will do everything within my power to ensure that it is not ignored or forgotten.”
Although Bolques and the Ethics Committee entered an agreement that called for the issuance of a letter of reprimand, the full body decided to impose a harsher penalty by suspending him.
Bolques wrote that, under established legal and legislative practice, any additional sanction would have required a formal renegotiation of the stipulated settlement agreement, mutual assent of all parties, and subsequent ratification by the Committee on Ethical Conduct. He cited two U.S. Supreme Court cases in which the High Court held that stipulated agreements are to be interpreted and enforced as contracts according to their written terms. He suggested that any deviation from his agreement without adherence to procedural safeguards constitutes a direct violation of his constitutional right to due process, as guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment and applicable to legislative and administrative proceedings.
However, the cases involved a baking company and a meat packers consent decree; neither involved a legislative body.
Additionally, Bolques suggested that permitting the amendment to advance violated Rule 810 of the Legislature, which outlines the rules of the Committee on Ethical Conduct. He indicated that he entered into the stipulated settlement agreement with the CEC pursuant to its authority under Rule 810.
When asked if the Committee on Ethical Conduct has any legal authority under legislative rules to propose or accept such an agreement, Senate President Milton Potter said the CEC is responsible to investigate the allegations and make a final recommendation to the full body of the Legislature that is reduced to a formal resolution, which he clarified could be amended by lawmakers.
“I know the Committee’s recommendation via that resolution was amended ultimately, and the court has consistently ruled that in these matters, majority rules, so the majority of the body has the ability to make adjustments one way or the other to what is recommended,” Potter said. “Whatever the majority rules ultimately stands, and that was the case in the Bolques matter.”
Potter said lawmakers acted within the Legislature’s rules when a majority voted to amend the resolution and impose a harsher penalty against Bolques than originally proposed in the settlement agreement.
“The Committee on Ethical Conduct is just charged with doing the investigation and making a recommendation for sanction,” he said. “So, once that recommendation is made and formalized via this resolution, the body has an opportunity to vote or amend.”
The CEC had recommended the reprimand following an investigation into a March 26 formal complaint filed by a staffer against Bolques. Allegations included workplace harassment, financial mismanagement, misconduct, unethical behavior, and creating a hostile work environment. However, under Legislature Rule 810(e), complaints must be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation, so more serious allegations against Bolques that reportedly occurred during the summer of 2024 were excluded, according to a letter from CEC Chair Sen. Kenneth Gittens to Potter.
Potter pointed out the 34th Legislature amended a recommendation from the Committee on Ethical Conduct following its investigation into allegations that former At-Large Senator Steven Payne Sr. sexually harassed a female employee of the Legislature.
“The Committee made a recommendation, and the body made its amendments, and that final amendment is what stood,” he said.
While the CEC recommended a 50-day suspension for Payne, the full body approved an amendment to a resolution during legislative session on July 20, 2022 that expelled Payne for violating four of the body’s rules relating to the Code of Ethical Conduct, including its zero-tolerance policy against sexual harassment.
Bolques joined the Legislature in 2022 during the last quarter of the 34th Legislature upon being selected by the Democratic Party to fill the vacancy left following Payne’s expulsion. He went on to win the at-large seat to serve in both the 35th and 36th Legislatures.
Bolques wrote that, if necessary, the stipulated settlement agreement may be enforced through judicial intervention, including breach-of-contract claims, injunctions, declaratory relief, or other remedies appropriate to address the harm caused by its violations.
While Bolques noted the possibility of legal action, the courts have ruled that the Legislature is the sole arbiter of its members. The courts have made such rulings in cases involving Payne and former Senator Kenneth Mapp.
Payne filed a lawsuit on July 28, 2022 in Superior Court along with plaintiff Noellise Powell, a St. John resident who asserted that she voted for Payne when he was elected in 2018 and 2020. The plaintiffs claimed, among other allegations, that the Legislature acted “arbitrarily” and “capriciously” in amending the resolution to change Payne’s penalty to expulsion from suspension.
The case was ultimately transferred to the Virgin Islands Supreme Court, which noted the allegation claiming the lawmakers acted arbitrarily or capriciously in amending the resolution inherently requested the court to substitute its own judgment for that of the 14 senators who voted to expel Payne. The Supreme Court found that doing so would infringe on the authority of the Legislature to administer its own affairs as a coequal branch of government. The Supreme Court subsequently granted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, according to an opinion of the court signed on March 22, 2024 by Chief Justice Rhys Hodge.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals also held that the Legislature administers its own affairs in a case involving Mapp.
The 18th Legislature passed a bill removing Mapp as a member of the body based on his failure to meet the standing requirements of voter registration and residency outlined in the Revised Organic Act of 1954. Mapp contended that the procedure used to remove him by a simple majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote violated his constitutional right to due process. The former Territorial Court, which is now the Superior Court, ruled that the Legislature violated Mapp’s constitutional right to due process when it voted to apply one rule of the Legislature calling for a simple majority vote to a bill that removed him from office instead of another rule calling for a two-thirds vote. The Legislature appealed to the Appellate Division of the District Court, which reversed and remanded the case to the lower court with instruction to vacate its judgment and dismiss the complaint. Mapp appealed, and the Third Circuit held that the Legislature’s action met due process requirements and that the question of whether its rule requiring a two-thirds vote applied to Mapp’s case was a matter entrusted to the legislative body for its final resolution.
