Trust is a foundation of good governance. But last month’s jaw-dropping revelation that House of Assembly members secretly doubled their own salaries has shaken that foundation once again.
The facts are clear. According to Auditor General Sonia Webster’s report, HOA members met behind closed doors in December 2023 and agreed to boost their own baseline salaries by 119 percent — from a collective $681,000 to nearly $1.5 million — without public disclosure, open debate or explanation.
This was not a minor adjustment. The decision put every legislator’s total compensation well into six-figure territory, with the premier now collecting more than $250,000 a year (up about $100,000) and the lowest-paid members taking in about $134,000 (up about $35,000) once allowances are included.
For a territory still grappling with economic uncertainty, the pandemic aftermath, and hurricane recovery, the timing alone is troubling. More troubling is the process — or lack thereof.
HOA members claimed last week that there was “no secrecy” surrounding the move, pointing out that the funding was included in the 2024 budget and that members’ salary adjustments were mentioned in 2024 discussions and news coverage.
But their spin was misleading at best, and it does not change the essential facts: There was no open-session debate and no public announcement at the time of the raises — and the extent of the increases did not come to light until the auditor general’s report was released last week.
Worse, there has been no effort to explain — or, apparently, even to evaluate — the longer-term implications for HOA members’ pensions, gratuities and the public purse, according to the auditor general’s investigation.
For a decision that more than doubled elected officials’ baseline pay, taxpayers deserved a forthright conversation — not a line item buried in the budget estimates (which, we note, do not clearly show the raise either).
The HOA statement also insists that the process was guided by “independent oversight” and was based on recommendations in a report by consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers. But the PwC report is confusing at best, and we find in it no clear recommendation for such a large increase.
Moreover, as Ms. Webster’s report makes plain, HOA members’ pay originally was not supposed to be part of the public-service review in the first place. Only after PwC had begun its work did the Deputy Governor’s Office instruct the consultants to include legislators’ salaries, the auditor found.
This was a deliberate decision, and the public was never consulted on whether it was appropriate — or even informed that it happened until long after the fact.
Legislators also point out in their statement that their baseline salaries had not been raised since 1995, and that the baseline salary for the lowest paid members was previously $36,000. All true, technically.
But their account makes no mention of their hefty allowances, which they quietly raised by about $30,000 for most members in 2009. Since then, even the lowest-paid members were earning nearly $100,000 a year — a far cry from $36,000.
To be fair, legislators probably did need a raise. The cost of living here is high, and they are right that their remuneration should reflect their hefty responsibilities and be commensurate with high-ranking civil servants.
Moreover, the new range does not appear to be out of keeping with corresponding salaries in other well-off British overseas territories (though more analysis is clearly needed to compare VI members’ generous retirement packages with their overseas counterparts’).
But the size of the raise — and the way it was handled — risk undermining public confidence at a time when trust in government is already exceedingly fragile following legislators’ ill-advised decisions surrounding the so-called “Greedy Bill.”
A 119 percent pay hike in one shot is a staggering leap by any standard. In the private sector, even the most underpaid employee would be lucky to see such a jump overnight. And how many teachers, nurses, police officers or other civil servants have seen anything close to a doubling of their pay in recent decades?
HOA members now insist they are committed to “transparency” and “due process.” If that is truly the case, they should lead by example. That means more than issuing defensive press releases after public outrage.
It means publishing the minutes of the December 2023 meeting where the raises were agreed (if such minutes exist); openly debating the rationale for the specific figures chosen; and, crucially, calculating and disclosing the long-term fiscal impact of higher salaries on pensions and gratuities — which Ms. Webster has already warned could be substantial.
It also means reforming the budgeting process for HOA members’ salaries from the ground up. A truly transparent approach would include establishing an independent remuneration commission — as is common in other jurisdictions — and requiring that any recommended changes be debated and voted on in public session, with enough time for public input before they take effect.
Certainly, VI legislators should be compensated fairly. But they must earn that compensation not just with their work in the House, but with their commitment to openness and accountability.
Until they do, residents will be left wondering who is really being served.
