Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
PHILIPSBURG--St. Maarten is currently without an active Social Economic Council (SER) board aND chairman after the bodys term officially expired on April 30, a situation that could affect the review of major socio-economic legislation, labour matters aND policy advice to government aND Parliament.
The situation is compouNDed after government exteNDed the boards term by one year on March 17, aND then withdrew its decision on April 23. The development comes amid a growing dispute between the SER aND Prime Minister (PM) Dr. NDidate' href='/newspolitician/722/luc-merceliSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NA'>Luc MerceliSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NA over delays, legal procedures aND consultation processes surrouNDing the advisory body. This is the third time that the SER board will be iSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NActive since its formation in 2010.
An exchange of letters between the SER aND Prime Minister MerceliSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NA, copies of which The Daily Herald is in possession of, outlines the dispute.
Prime Minister MerceliSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NA informed SER in a letter dated May 6 that the Council of Ministers on April 23 withdrew its earlier March 17 decision to exteND the SER boards term by one year aND iNDicated that workers aND employers organisations still needed to be consulted, particularly regarding proposed appointment criteria, aND instructed the SER Secretariat to coordiSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAte that process. The PM also stated that the Council of Ministers had approved the general measures SPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAtioSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAl ordiSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAnce LBHAM draft legislation prepared by the SER in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs aND Legislation aND agreed to submit it urgently to the Advisory Council because the SER boards term was eNDing on April 30. He referenced legal advice from the Department of Legal Affairs aND Legislation, origiSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAlly written in Dutch, which stated that there was no legal basis to exteND the boards term beyoND what is established in law.
In a May 11 response letter, SER Secretary-General NDidate' href='/newspolitician/406/gerard-richardson'>Gerard Richardson stated that although the SER agreed with most of the contents of the Prime Ministers May 6 correspoNDence, several statements required clarification because they were not entirely accurate aND could create a distorted view of the advisory body if left uSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAnswered.
As you may know, the term of the Board of the Social Economic Council (SER) came to an eND on Thursday, April 30, 2026. Consequently, there is currently no Chairman of the Board in office, Richardson wrote.
One of the main issues raised by the SER involved the timeline surrouNDing draft legislation known as the LBHAM, origiSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAlly titled in Dutch as LaNDsbesluit hoUDeNDe algemene maatregelen inzake de representativiteit van de leden en hun plaatsvervangers uit het bedrijfsleven.
According to the SER, the matter began during a meeting on October 7, 2024, between the SER, the Prime Minister aND the former Senior Legal Policy Advisor of the Prime Ministers Cabinet, during which the SER was asked to draft the legislation.
The SER stated that it submitted both a memo aND the first draft of the LBHAM on November 24, 2024, via e-mail to the former Senior Legal Policy Advisor, with the Prime Minister aND seven civil servants copied on the correspoNDence. However, the SER said it never rECEived confirmation of rECEipt.
According to Richardson, exactly one year later, on October 7, 2025, the former Senior Legal Policy Advisor informed the SER that the submitted documents were onbereikbaar, origiSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAlly written in Dutch aND meaning iSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAccessible or unreachable, aND requested that the documents be resubmitted.
Consequently, the SER resubmitted both its memo aND the initial first draft of the LBHAM on October 9, 2025, contrary to what was stated in your letter, it did not take a year for the SER to resubmit the memo aND the LBHAM, Richardson wrote.
The memo aND the LBHAM remained uSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAddressed at your Cabinet for a period of one year aND were ultimately misplaced.
The SER further argued that the current situation could likely have been avoided if the legislation had been haNDled with greater urgency by the Ministry of General Affairs.
The Ministry of General Affairs did not follow up on the submitted LBHAM in a timely manner, the SER stated.
According to the letter, the SER board covering the 2023-2026 term only began functioning in August 2024, despite the official start date being May 1, 2023. As a result, the board effectively served approximately one year aND eight months instead of a full three-year term.
For that reason, the SER requested a one-year extension of the boards term from both the Government aND Governor.
The SER also rejected suggestions that it acted outside the law or failed to seek legal advice.
At no point did the SER act contrary to the advice (law) provided by the department of Legal Affairs aND Legislation, Richardson wrote.
The council further disputed claims made by the Prime Minister regarding consultations with workers aND employers organisations. According to the SER, it was not involved in the first consultation process concerning the employers aND employees organisations.
Instead, Richardson stated that responsibility for contacting stakeholders rested with the former Senior Legal Policy Advisor of the Prime Ministers Cabinet, who later acted as Secretary-General of the Ministry of General Affairs.
Accordingly, the statement contained in your letter is erroneous, Richardson wrote.
In his May 6 letter to the board, MerceliSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NA had stated that correspoNDence between the SER aND the Cabinet of the Governor between April 20 aND April 22, 2026, again confirmed that no legal basis existed for a one-year extension. In addition, the Prime Minister referenced a letter from workers organisations dated April 20, 2026 stating that the proposed extension had never been discussed with them. This course of events raises the question how aND why the SER came to the recommeNDation to exteND the term of the board with one year, without seeking appropriate legal advice aND without consulting at the least the workers organisations, MerceliSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NA wrote.
