Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
PHILIPSBURG--The Supervisory Board of the St. Maarten Bureau Telecommunication and Post BTP SXM has issued a press release saying that after prior consultation with Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication (TEATT) Claret Connor, it has decided to make a public statement that "it is evident that crucial available information within Government is not made available to all, or considered, which leads to the continued unfounded allegation of fraud at the BTP SXM."
"In an effort to address these unfounded allegations once and for all the Supervisory Board of BTP SXM wishes to inform all that the laws applicable to the functioning of BTP SXM are followed. Neither this Supervisory Board nor Management of the BTP SXM ever took a decision to purchase a building. Based on the law such decisions are taken by the Minister of TEATT, not the Supervisory Board or Management.
"Two previous Ministers of TEATT, with full knowledge and support of the Council of Ministers, took the decision to purchase the building in which the BTP SXM is housed and several Government departments were intended to be housed," BTP SXM asserted.
The Wit-Samson integrity report published last year noted that at the very least there were some questions surrounding the purchase or rent of a number of buildings. "Amongst these was the acquisition of an office for BTP to the tune of NAf. 6 million, whereas the actual value was estimated to be significantly lower by a number of experts," it was stated on page 33 of the report.
According to extracts The Daily Herald obtained from the Kadaster public registry, six units in the building were bought by BTP Sint Maarten from Carl Critchlow on February 8, 2013 for US $6,600,000. This acquisition was partly financed with a mortgage of US $5,936,000 through Windward Islands Bank.
"The financial institution which financed the purchase based on the instructions of Government executed a due diligence, required appraisal reports from an appraiser of its approved listing, and confirmation letters from Government to undertake the financing for the purchase," BTP stated in its release.
"Given the information on file with the Government, the investigative report findings by the [Governmental accounting bureau – Ed.] SOAB on this matter, it is beyond belief to this Supervisory Board that entities within Government or linked to Government still express public allegations of fraud.
"It is due time that the SOAB report, appraisal reports and advices are shared with all so that a complete and proper understanding may be obtained and not one based on malicious mêlée or a suggestive Integrity Report."
BTP also believes the Integrity Report references must be addressed as here too the Government clearly did not provide documentation it had in its possession to the Integrity Committee, yet chose to send this committee to the Supervisory Board for the documentation, knowing that the Supervisory Board is not authorised to release the requested information.
"This Supervisory Board rightfully redirected the investigators to the Government for their request on release of documents on the BTP SXM. This Supervisory Board, whilst willing to work and cooperate in every way possible, will not violate the law to please any entity or person," BTP stated.
"The Supervisory Board hopes that the Government will duly share all information on this matter with all pertinent entities so the BTP SXM may focus on its task execution instead of the constant burdens of investigation upon investigation.
"There needs to be an end to unfounded allegation of fraud in this case, as names and reputations of persons are unnecessarily tarnished simply because of a refusal to read available information, address allegations after investigative reports findings fail to support the fraud allegation and to take responsibility for decisions taken."
The Wit-Samson integrity report was not the only report raising questions about the goings-on at BTP SXM. The PricewaterhouseCoopers integrity report had the following to say on page 82:
"A BTP official and an individual with direct knowledge of BTP explained that concession fees are fixed and spectrum fees are variable. Currently, BTP pays operational costs from spectrum fees and pays all concession fees directly to Government; however, according to the interviewees this policy is not formalized, and was only articulated in correspondence with the Minister.
"Under Ordinance BTP, any surplus should also be paid back to Government; however, currently, no official policy or regulation states that all concession fees are paid directly to the Government, which may cause confusion and allow vulnerability for deviation."
The General Audit Chamber recently published its 2013 Compliance Audit of the financial statements of Country Sint Maarten in which it had the following to say about BTP on page 21:
"As Sint Maarten maintains a financial interest in BT&P, Sint Maarten is entitled to a portion of the proceeds from operations. In accordance with the National Ordinance BT&P, the Director of BT&P is required to present the financial statements and the annual report to the relevant Minister within six months after the end of the financial year.
"Sint Maarten's share could not be determined for the 2012 and 2013 financial statements because the 2012 financial statement of BT&P was not audited and the 2013 financial statement of BT&P was not drafted. We intend to initiate an audit of BT&P in 2015."
