Crucians In Focus has received the following response from Paul Chakroff, Executive Director of the St. Croix Environmental Association, to an article entitled “Conflicts, Contradictions Abound In Alpine Support System; Why Is The SEA Testifying In Favor Of AEG?” We have printed his response in its entirety.
The sections in italic represent excerpts from the CIF article to which Chakroff is responding.
Michael Springer, President
Crucians in Focus
Dear Michael,
Thank you for publishing the Crucians in Focus article Conflicts, Contradictions Abound In Alpine Support System; Why Is The SEA Testifying In Favor Of AEG? I am happy to address the issues you have raised. Below I have addressed your statements or questions (in ital.) point by point.
Why would Paul Chakroff, Executive Director of St. Croix Environmental Association (SEA) testify in favor of the Alpine Energy Group (AEG)?
St. Croix Environmental Association (SEA) has endorsed waste-to-energy (WtE) and the technology proposed, not Alpine Energy Group.
The Legislature is holding hearings on the latest AEG proposal Tuesday on St. Thomas and Wednesday on St. Croix. Hearings on both islands begin at 6 p.m…. A review of the testifiers reveals all the usual participants, and one that caused us to question why an organization that was forcefully against the original Alpine proposal would now stand in favor of their newest plan…. A visit to the SEA website may have provided part of the answer to this question. If you were an organization committed to the preservation of the environment of the Virgin Islands, would you accept donations from some of the donors on this list?
Yes! SEA seeks and welcomes grants, contracts AND charitable donations from all sectors. There are many motivations for people, foundations or corporations to make charitable donations: EDC requirements, tax benefits, environmental impact mitigation, guilt, philosophical agreement, financial advantage, etc. The challenge to me is to ensure that a) donations are used according to any stated wishes of the donors, and b) charitable donations do not influence my advocacy position vis-à-vis the donor. There are both legal and ethical rules that apply here.
Let’s take HOVENSA as an example. For many years SEA has received $10,000 – $20,000 per year from this corporate citizen. We restrict their donation to our environmental education program and do not allow the donation to influence our advocacy position regarding our review of their air or groundwater pollution emissions. Our testimony on HOVENSA permit applications has not been particularly favorable to HOVENSA and I am happy to share that with you or your readers if you are interested in reviewing it. Similarly with DIAGEO, I am currently discussing a project designed to mitigate air pollution impacts on the people residing in Bethlehem Village and Profit Hills. If receipt of funding by SEA for education or environmental impact mitigation is a problem for you for your readers, we have to agree to disagree about a fundamental difference in opinion.
Any guesses as to who the “Anonymous” donor might be?
SEA’s anonymous donors are private individuals who shall remain anonymous until they instruct me otherwise.
Time certainly does bring about a change. Back when Alpine brought its first proposal to the VI in 2008, Chakroff had a completely different view of the company, its proposal, and even whether it was qualified to bid on the contract in the first place. Those contracts are still in place for the current Alpine proposal. What changed his mind?
Read more »
Share on Facebook