a grammar lesson...

Sheesh. What a waste of our tax money. (td) We're paying a man to split hairs over grammar when he doesn't even understand the proper use of a comma?

Don't get me started.

Glad to see the governor taking up for himself!(tu)

I'M with you Juanita!8-)

Lemme see..."of roads" restricts only the noun "resurfacing"....OK, yup, I get that. So, money was appropriated for 4 separate things but...

If not "of roads" then money was appropriated for "construction"... but construction of what precisely? Just any construction? Ya mean like, here's some money now go build something?

If not "of roads" then money was appropriated for "repairs"...but repairs to what specifically? Just any repairs? Ya mean like, here's some money, now go fix something?

Well, that's just clear as mud.

Hmmm...I think I would have been more impressed if the Governor had said something like, "The language in parts that appropriations bill was so imperfectly worded that, from a legal standpoint, we could have used the money to build an amusement park on Point Udall if we had chosen to do so."

Here's a summary of the 7-page document:

It's a letter from Governor John P. de Jongh, Jr. to Acting Inspector General Mary L. Kendall, disagreeing with her findings that public funds were improperly used for security improvements at the Governor’s private residence.

The Governor says that these security improvements were made after determining that, “The government owned no property suitable or secure to house me and my family,” and that it would take considerable time and expense to prepare such a residence. Therefore, the Governor chose to remain at his private residence. VIPD assessed the property for security purposes, and found that it would need some improvements such as, “fencing, a secure parking and turn-around area, surveillance cameras, and an all-weather guardhouse.”

The Governor quotes from the IG’s findings: “We found that the funds used for the purpose of providing security at your private residence were set aside for road repairs in the Virgin Islands by the Legislative Branch of Government.“ He also says, “Further, your letter states that my Administration ‘improperly diverted’ these funds.” He then goes on to refute these two findings.

He quotes the relevant statutory provision from which funding was used for the security upgrades: “The sum of $1,305,000 is appropriated…for engineering designs, construction, repairs or the resurfacing of roads…” (I chopped out some text for brevity. I also don’t know what amount was actually used for the security improvements)

He says, with very detailed attention to grammar, that the statutory provision as written was not just for road repairs, but “for engineering designs, construction, repairs or the resurfacing of roads.” He says that the IG’s finding that the funding was only for road repairs was incorrect.

He also says, “The record clearly shows that we [the Governor’s office] sought a legal opinion [from the Attorney General that public funding could be used for security matters on privately owned property], sought and obtained a legislative reprogramming [of funds] and openly bid and contracted the work undertaken,” and that all of this was done openly and transparently.

He also suggests that the IG’s findings were politically motivated.

Yup. I read it. That's not a bad summary.

If Section 17 of Act No. 6019 was intended to appropriate money for our roads, then the Governor correctly demonstrated that the language was flawed and did not clearly express the intent of the Legislature.

If the language of Section 17 of Act No. 6019 clearly expresses the intent of the legislature, as the Governor seems to suggest, then the Legislature appropriated money for "construction" without specifying what portion of the appropriation should be allocated for "construction" nor specified what should be constructed. The same with repairs. The Legislature appropriated money for "repairs" without specifying what portion of the appropriation should be allocated for "repairs" nor specified what should be repaired. Does that make sense to anyone?

Decide for yourself. Was the money intended for our roads?

Section 17 of Act No. 6019

SECTION 17. The sum of $1,305,000 is appropriated in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, from the savings realized in SECTION 16 to the Department of Public Works for engineering designs, construction, repairs, or the resurfacing of roads. The sum remains available until expended.

[www.demmansay.com] is a curious web site. Who is the author/editor/owner of the site?