When a staffer filed a workplace sexual harassment complaint against Sen. Angel Bolques Jr. in March, the case was routed through an internal review by the V.I. Legislature’s Committee on Ethical Conduct — ultimately resulting in a 30-day suspension without pay. But the timeline and limited information shared publicly or with fellow lawmakers have since fueled questions about how internal complaints are handled — and how those processes compare to what’s in place across the rest of government.
While most executive branch employees are covered by the Division of Personnel’s sexual harassment policy, the Legislature operates under a separate 2013 manual, governed by its own internal rules. Unlike the Personnel policy, which triggers a strict series of investigative deadlines and external oversight, the Legislature’s process is almost entirely self-contained — and imposes a much shorter window for staff to file complaints.
Under current sexual harassment policy, legislative employees must submit a written complaint within 45 calendar days of the alleged incident and request a formal hearing within 60 days. Investigations are conducted internally, with final disciplinary decisions requiring a vote of the full Senate — even in cases involving sitting lawmakers.
By contrast, the Division of Personnel’s process — which governs most other government agencies — encourages prompt reporting but does not impose a filing deadline. Once a complaint is received, however, the timeline becomes rigid: within 24 hours, the report must be escalated to a supervisor, then transmitted to Personnel within five working days, and assigned to an investigator within another five. Investigations must be completed within 30 working days (extendable to 60), and a resolution must be issued within 180 days of the original filing.
The Division’s policy also provides that if a dispute arises between an agency head and Personnel over the investigation’s outcome, the matter is referred to the governor for final review — a layer of external oversight absent from the Legislature’s internal model.
Asked by the Source why the Legislature does not follow the Division of Personnel’s policy, Sen. Kenneth Gittens — chair of the Committee on Ethical Conduct that investigated the complaint against Bolques — said the answer lies in the government’s constitutional structure.
“The Legislature is a separate and coequal branch of government, and therefore not subject to policies established for the executive branch,” Gittens said in a written response to the Source. “That said, we do align with many of the same standards and share the Division’s sexual harassment training curriculum as part of our ongoing commitment to maintaining a safe and respectful workplace.”
Both policies require annual employee training, but only the Division mandates that completions be tracked. Its policy also requires supervisors to complete specialized training within their first year of employment. The Legislature’s manual, meanwhile, requires that policies and Affirmative Action Officer contact information be posted in every office and online — though the document is referenced but not included in full within the official rules, and not posted on its website. It was provided to the Source upon request by the Executive Director’s Office.
Who Sees What — and When?
As in the Bolques case, when the accused is a senator, the Legislature’s Committee on Ethical Conduct is responsible for investigating and recommending disciplinary action. That recommendation then goes to the full Senate for a vote. But several lawmakers expressed frustration during a recent session that they were not given access to the full complaint or supporting documentation — a concern that raised further questions about transparency within the process.
“Our responsibility is to gather the facts as thoroughly as possible and report our findings to the full body, which we did through a final report,” Gittens explained. “This document outlined the basis for our conclusions and the evidence considered.”
Gittens added that any restrictions on sharing additional materials stemmed from “allegations that, due to timing and procedural constraints, were outside the Committee’s jurisdiction,” and that stepping outside the rules would have been unethical.
Meanwhile, neither the Legislature’s policy nor its rules require referrals to the Justice Department — even in cases involving repeated harassment, stalking, or physical assault. The Senate president or executive director may take “direct institutional action” or assign an investigation without a formal complaint, but external reporting is discretionary.
“The Committee on Ethical Conduct conducted an administrative investigation, and the matter was addressed at that level,” Gittens said. “Should the complainant have additional information or choose to pursue the matter further, they are free to refer it to the Department of Justice at their own discretion.”
In August, Gittens filed legislation to expand the window for ethics complaints from 60 days to a full legislative term, plus 60 days into the next. He said the change is necessary to ensure complaints aren’t dismissed on technical grounds — particularly in cases that may emerge toward the end of a senator’s term.
Still, the proposal has reignited discussion about how internal complaints are handled — and whether the existing policy framework does enough to protect employees within the Legislature.
St. Croix Source
Local news
