issue: "Whereas the United States, as a charter member of the United Nations, is
required to foster greater self-government and self-determination for the people of the
Virgin Islands..."

 The Select Committee solicited input from community opinion leaders and
 organizations and held a total of nine public hearings on St. Thomas, St. John and
 St. Croix during the period from May 29, 1984 August 15, 1984. The Committee's
 Report lists a total of 54 people as testifying in the hearings. According to
 contemporary newspaper stories, public attendance was sparse, with estimates
 ranging from a high of 50 (St. Thomas, May 29, 1994) to a low of 10 (St. Croix,
 August 15, 1984). Testimony also appeared unrepresentative of general community
 sentiment, as activists for such options as independence which public opinion polls
 indicate receives the least support of all options took advantage of the opportunity to
 express their positions.16

 The Select Committee made its report to the Legislature on January 14, 1985. It
 was accepted as the basis for the formation of the next Virgin Islands Status
 Commission, and provided a status selection process that would be vigorously
 debated and subsequently changed.

 The Report notes that in addition to the public hearings previously mentioned,
the Select Committee distributed an informational pamphlet entitled "What You Should
Know About the Work of the Select Committee on Status and Federal Relations:
Some Questions and Answers". The pamphlet is reprinted as part of the Committee
Report. It covers the options of statehood, independence, incorporated territory,
commonwealth, trust territory, free association and compact of federal relations. In its
examination of options, the pamphlet dismisses "commonwealth" in the following
language: "In the American scheme of things, 'commonwealth' is essentially a
meaningless label which represents a distinction without a difference." After reviewing
the "Commonwealths" of the Philippines, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana
Islands, the publication concludes: ". .. in the American scheme of things, the term
'commonwealth' has no constitutional or legal meaning." Since the Report dismissed
commonwealth as an option, it recommended that only the following choices be
presented to the voters at a referendum: statehood, independence, free association,
incorporated territory, status quo and compact of federal relations.17 Each non-
territorial status was provided with a draft bill that outlined its specific features. In the
referendum the voters would be able to accept an option (e.g., independence) while
rejecting specific provisions of the draft bill. The referendum would be preceded by a
public education campaign and the choice of the voters would provide the popular
mandate for negotiations with the United States. In contrast to the status process
authorized by Act 4462, there would be no consultation with the federal government
on which option was "acceptable" prior to negotiations. The act of selection was
viewed as an exercise in self-determination that would proceed independently of
Washington. In the question and answer pamphlet issued by the Select Committee,
the question is raised: "Do we know what changes in our relationship with the United