Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
Various Members of Parliament speak with Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication Claret Connor and his support staff.
~ ‘Sensitive answers’ to be given in two weeks ~
PHILIPSBURG--The meeting of the Central Committee of Parliament, which had been called by National Alliance (NA) Members of Parliament (MPs) seeking answers about a hefty rise in pay in a security contract signed between St. Maarten Harbour Group of Companies (SHGC) and Checkmate Security, has largely been deemed fruitless, and was called “unfortunate†by some MPs.
The Daily Herald reported earlier this year that Harbour subsidiary St. Maarten Ports Authority had budgeted US $3,138,300 for 2015 to spend on outside security services (Checkmate Security), up from $963,715 spent in 2014.
According to the Harbour’s 2015 budget, a copy of which this newspaper has in its possession, the hourly rate charged by the security company increased in September 2013 from $6.75 to $7.07, a hike of roughly 5 per cent. Now, however, the rate is scheduled to increase by some 48.5 per cent, from $7.07 to $10.50.
The increase was deemed remarkable, as Checkmate changed ownership late last year.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SHGC and the new owners were expected to sign a new contract at the time. Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication (TEATT) Claret Connor was invited to provide requested clarifications on Thursday.
MPs were surprised to hear a statement that there is “no new contract,†which was the explanation to MP Christophe Emmanuel’s initial question as to where the previously-requested supporting documents were.
A sole document was provided, a copy of the contract dated 2011, but no copies were made. The MPs were allowed to peruse the information for some 30 minutes on the request of MP William Marlin.
Further taking away from the discussion was the fact that what the Minister identified during the answer session as a personal note that mistakenly had not been “wited out†before the document was copied and presented to Parliament formed a major part of the line of questioning.
This was the addition of the number “10.30†as it pertained to fee per man-hour for security guards, which indicated a sudden more-than-50-per-cent rise in salary after steady increments of no more than 10 cents each year, from US $6.55 the year the contract was signed.
There was no explanation as to why the note had been made and MPs questioned where the number 10.30 had come from, especially if there was no new contract. Emmanuel said Port Chief Executive Officer Mark Mingo had referred to a document when asked by Parliament about the steep rise in pay.
Marlin in particular had focused on the issue at hand being the fact that a change had been made to the document without the change being marked with a signee’s initials.
After Connor apologised for not intervening and disclosing that he had made the handwritten change, Marlin said he was curious what answers would be given in two weeks, as the questions were based on a false premise. Emmanuel said he had little faith in receiving any answers after two weeks, calling the lack of transparency a “smokescreen.â€
The meeting ended up mainly revolving around the fact that questions were being aimed at St. Maarteners while some MPs such as Franklin Meyers and Frans Richardson said foreigners were not questioned in the same way, as well as the questioning of whether Parliament had a right to butt into “internal†affairs.
Meyers said the airport’s resurfacing project and the ongoing floodgate expansion had not received the same scrutiny.
Richardson said the whole thing “not only played a politically nice dance tune,†but also almost dragged him into the mud by association. He added that he was in the session to debate a new contract, not an old one, and that he found this pointless.
He said he was “furious†that the other political party had “joined the bandwagon†without due diligence in researching the contract. He said the other MPs had seen the budget where security was concerned and “went wild, and figured out something must be there.†He said he had carried out his own investigation.
He added that he always had fought to raise the minimum wage and that in no way making “six dollars and change could provide a decent living here.â€
In response to the relevant questions asked by MPs, Connor provided a general statement that included the fact that Government was meant to stay at arm’s length from Government-owned companies and that security issues should not be discussed publicly, but said he would provide specific answers in writing within two weeks due to the sensitivity of information.
Chairman Lloyd Richardson concluded the meeting by pointing out its ineffectiveness, citing that the document contained a number of elements that had not been questioned. He said the group had gone off-track, and missed an opportunity for clarifications.
He cited, for example, services that could have been questioned and questions pertaining to an addendum. However, it should be noted that two MPs did ask to see an addendum if there was one.
Chairman Richardson said notes had been taken of the questions that should be answered in two weeks. He said he would allow a new meeting, but did not see the point of coming back if MPs were to “rehearse the type of behaviour exhibited this afternoon.â€
Other questions included whether the salaries of the security guards had been raised, who would provide any International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) security training, whether a security audit had been completed, and whether there were other justifications for the increase. Frans Richardson asked for the security expenses of all government-owned companies.
MPs Theo Heyliger and Sarah Wescot-Williams were not present, with notifications. The meeting had been postponed from 1:30 to 3:30pm in connection to the funeral of Wescot-Williams’ late mother.
Stale progress
This newspaper initially broke the story, printed February 24, that according to leaked budgets, the Harbour subsidiary St. Maarten Ports Authority had budgeted US $3,138,300 for 2015 to spend on outside security services (Checkmate Security), up from $963,715 spent in 2014. Since then MPs have been asking questions that largely have gone unanswered to date.
Another article that ran February 27 – “Mingo refuses to disclose details of Checkmate security contract†– detailed a session between Mingo and the Parliament's Permanent Committee for TEATT the day prior, where clarity was sought on the pressing issue.
However, Mingo remained mum on many questions, would not disclose the identity of Checkmate’s new owner and did not present supporting documentation as requested by Wescot-Williams.
A number of MPs expressed their annoyance at being referred back and forth between the harbour and shareholder representative Connor when answers to hot-button topics were being sought.
Mingo had said he would disclose more information in a closed-door session. The MPs stating on Thursday that they still were awaiting answers indicated that this has not yet happened.
