Councilmember Sarah Wescot-Williams’ Presentation Speech from the Island Council Meeting which was held on August 10th 2009.
Island Council Meeting
August 10th, 2009
Agenda point 3:
Incoming Documents
Incoming document # 3: letter to the members of the island Council from the UFA dated June 30th for a meeting. The NA/Heyliger executive council informs the island Council that this matter is "being handled" by the NA/Heyliger executive council.
No where is the island Council being informed that the Executive decided on its own that " that they deem it more suitable" that the UFA meets with the NA/Heyliger executive council. I assume that when the UFA requests a meeting with the island councils(!) of Sint Maarten, Saba and St. Eustatius that the UFA knew very well why they tilted this matter to the level of the island councils.
Now, and only now, we of the Democratic Party faction get a copy of the letter addressed to us as members of the island council. We do not get the response from the NA/Heyliger executive council to the UFA, but we are told the letter is being handled. In the meantime, from the press we learn that the meeting the NA/Heyliger executive council deemed "more suitable" and which they held on August 6th, is considered by the UFA as "fruitless".
Questions:
What is the position of the Commissioner of energy with respect to the "pending problems between UFA and the managing Director of GEBE", as explained to the Commissioner by the UFA in their meeting with the Commissioner of Energy on August 5th?
What is the position of the NA/Heyliger executive council with respect to the "pending problems between UFA and the managing director of GEBE", as explained to the NA/Heyliger executive council by the UFA in their meeting with the NA/Heyliger executive council of August 6th?
Incoming document # 4: letter to the island council from the Island Secretary d.d. July 1, 2009 regarding relocation of support to island Council factions. That letter states inter alia (paragraph 2) that "We are convinced that with relocation to the office facility management of the support staffer will result in more effective facilities support, especially considering that the faction offices will be increased to two (2) separate locations in the near future, to accommodate offices for all members of the island council and support staff".
Questions:
What is the status of the other location for the faction offices? When can we expect to occupy the other location, giving all 4 members of the Democratic party and their support staff a office to do the work they were elected to do by the people of Sint Maarten?
Incoming document # 5
Letter to the island Council from the chairman of the NAAZ Commission of the 2nd Chamber dated July 3rd 2009, regarding a consultation with the legislatures of the Antilles and Aruba, including the island councils of Curacao and Sint Maarten in the month of October 2009.
We have taken note of reports in the media coming from the Parliament of the Netherlands Antilles, suggesting that that parliament is not inclined to honor this invitation.
The NA/Heyliger executive council suggests on this incoming document that the matter be "discussed", without any further reference to when and how this will be discussed.
The faction of the Democratic Party is in favor of taking any opportunity for dialogue that advances Sint Maarten position. A dialogue with the NAAZ committee especially on the draft consensus Kingdom laws is considered by our faction such an opportunity, which should be grasped with both hands.
Incoming Document # 6
Letter to island council member S. Wescot-Williams from the NA/Heyliger executive council dated July 9th regarding objection filed to the Ring Road project. These objections have been copied to the members of the island council. Thank you.
However, from press reports, we have learned that the executive council has responded to the environmental organizations regarding their objections. One would expect that this answer too would have been copied to the island council members. This did not happen. It is even more interesting when apparently, going by what was reported in the media, the executive council in its response to these organizations emphasized that the Democratic Party initiated and endorsed the Ring Road project. That is absolutely true!
Just like we initiated and endorsed every other project designed, initiated, underway and completed by a democratic party government.
"Contingent upon feasibility, specific major road connectors that will be pursued are the causeway across the Simpson Bay Lagoon and the projected ring road around the Great Salt Pond. The policy of beautification of Philipsburg as the tourist center of the island will be completed, while specific attention will also be paid to beautification of the spatial surroundings of other districts. The government will realize public parking facilities in the two commercial centers Philipsburg and Cole Bay/Simpson Bay." ( DP Governing Program 2007-2011)
However, for the last 2 months, the Democratic Party is not in government, is not privy to how these very same plans and projects are being pursued or are being changed, adjusted or what ever else have you. And so, we will question the executive council on the way they are now executing DP initiated projects and programs.
We will give our opinion on how we think these projects and programs should be completed, especially if parts are being changed or adjusted. Which is the government’s good right, but the DP’s good right as well to question this government, even as DP-initiated projects. There are more ways to Rome than 1, and we want to know which road the executive council is taking.
Question:
Can we receive a copy of the answer to the environmental organizations with the references to the Democratic Party program 2007-2011, as reported in the press?
When can I expect answers to my questions as submitted on June 29th 2009?
These questions were/are:
Have meetings been held with those persons who in one way or another will be affected by this project?
How can we be assured that in addition to the arguments of beautification and traffic improvements, St. Maarteners have a fair chance where contract work and employment is concerned?
How will the outstanding land issues of businesses and individuals in this area be resolved? Where can these persons turn to? When will they be provided with information regarding same?
As government boasts that (young) people are involved in these major construction projects, we need to be provided with numbers of such to determine the employment impact for the local labor force of Sint Maarten, consisting of nationals and those already on Sint Maarten for the purpose of employment. These must be our first concern when speaking of employment opportunities.
Incoming document to the island Council # 8:
A letter to Councilman Roy marlin from the executive Council dated July 13th regarding response from the CFT re. draft Quarterly report.
Question:
Does the executive council agree that upon submission of these reports to the CFT, the island council should also be copied on these reports?
If the Council shares that view, when can the island Council expect copies of the financial report of the first and 2nd quarters of 2009?
Incoming document to the island council # 11.
Letter to the Executive Council from Bergman/Zwanikken/Snow/Essed dated July 17, 2009 regarding Orbitel/Telem Holding Company NV, with the following notification: "Clients herewith notify the executive council that clients would like to participate in the bidding procedure and would like to be seriously considered in this process as clients are uniquely qualified for such strategic partnership or acquisition."
The executive council suggests to the island council that we take note of this letter. Our faction disagree with this proposal and suggests that this matter be referred to a central Committee meeting, in which the CEO of telem group of companies, Mr. Pieter Drenth be invited to provide the central committee of the island council with an overview of the current state of affairs with respect to the telem group of companies, including prospects for potential partnerships in whatever form.
Secondly, not having received a governing program of the NA/Heyliger Executive Council, which was promised to be delivered one month and a half ago and now that we are told that "we will get it when it’s ready, I submit the following questions to the Executive Council.
What is their position with respect to the future of the Telem group of companies?
Has the request of Commissioner Heyliger of November 2008 to "design and implement a program to locate a strategic partner for TELEM, which partner is supposed to enable the telecommunications company to better cope with the effects of competition brought on through globalization" been met?
Has the executive council met with the St. maarten Communications Union as requested by this Union on June 25th? If yes, what was the outcome of this meeting and if not, does the Executive Council plan to meet with the SMCU on short term?
On July 24th, the same law office again writes to the executive Council with respect to its interest in Telem. I propose that this letter too be forwarded to the central Committee of the island council.
Question: is it still government’s intention to carry out a study of the telecommunication market as announced or does the government feel that the market research which has been conducted by JRJ Administrative legal and Financial Services Inc., and which was the subject of much debate in this island council gives government the tools to establish a policy with respect to the issuance of telecom licenses?
Island Council August 10, 2009
Agenda point # 4
Decision lists 11/5/09, 02/07/09 and 23/07/09
July 2, 2009 decision list: Announcements SWW
Orange Grove road: Some repairs have been made; apparently a drain pipe is being installed or if there was one before, it is being replaced. I thank the Executive Council for acting on my request to at least repair a major pot hole on that road. I also wish to ask the attention of the executive council for the Well Road, where I believe some road side cleaning of the bush and shrubs, and straightening some of the wire fencing alongside the road would be an alleviation for motorists and pedestrians alike.
Agenda point # 6
"The position of the Executive Council on the Social Economic consequences of the employment permit policy." (Requested by the DP faction)
Is there a difference between this agenda point and the one requested by the Democratic Party faction more than a month ago on July 7th?
The faction of the DP has sought by its letter of July 7th and the meeting which was held on this topic on July 14th to ascertain the position of the NA/Heyliger executive council on the employment permit policy. Lamentably that meeting on July 14th brought us no closer to a position of the NA/Heyliger executive council and the answers promised approximately a month ago by government are still being awaited.
What we were treated with during that meeting on July 14th last, was the position of council man William Marlin, not Commissioner marlin on a host of issues, perceived or real affecting St. Maarten’s labor market.
What was not said by either Commissioner Marlin or any other Commissioner of this government was how the government plans to tackle these issues of mentioned abuses by Commissioner Marlin in the labor market, the mismatch between supply and demand of labor, the callousness of some employers, misuse of short term labor contracts, employees’ attitudes in some sectors of the market.
For half an hour, Mr. Marlin in his capacity of island council member tore into these practices, only at the end to leave this council and the general population at a loss as to what the government’s plans were with respect to the situation as elucidated by councilman William Marlin in the meeting of July 14th and even more pressing, the position of this government regarding the employment permit policy as promulgated on November 12, 2008 and which went into effect on January 12, 2009 for the most parts.
The Democratic Party has maintained from day one that the policy as promulgated on November 12, 2008 and gone into effect on January 12, 2009 came about through tripartite consultation and any amendments to this policy should follow the same route, namely through consultation with the private sector partners.
My introduction to the "think tank" meeting of January 21, 2009, organized by the Chamber of Commerce:
I hope that you have had the chance to carefully review the elucidation pertaining to this resolution, because I am sure that this elucidation will give insight into the motives and the process and will give clarification to those issues with the dry text of the resolution could be interpreted in more than one way.
I want to give you one such example, and I’ll not use the resolution on employment of foreign labor, because I don’t want to run ahead of the discussion, but I’ll use the federal ordinance on the employment of foreign labor of 2001.
Realize as well that this federal ordinance is the basis, the foundation for our resolution and there are stipulations in the federal ordinance that we can not get around. In other cases we are given certain authorities
The example in the federal ordinance I wanted use is the following:
Article 7 of that law states: " an employment permit is granted for a specific period of time or for an indefinite period of time. " Cut and dry.
The elucidation states, that the period is maximally 3 years and can be extended with two more years. The period can however be shorter.
In the elucidation of the island resolution in question, a chronological review is given of the process to arrive at a policy on employment of foreign labor.
It shows that government did not haphazardly arrive at this point and this resolution.
Careful reviews have taken place. Consultations back and forth. In fact, a mandatory consultation was that of the Governor General of the Neth. Antilles.
And at the end of the day, taking its responsibility, the government approved the draft that was in front of it with its own input into it as well.
Be reminded of the fact that while this resolution does include new provisions, in many cases it is an amplification of the previous policy on employment permits.
I stated and stick by the statement that the policy is not cast in stone. In fact no policy is. As long as it is a government responsibility, government can change and amend its policies.
"Not cast in stone" can never be taken to mean, that it will be applied arbitrarily.
I have the impression, after hearing and listening, taking note of some of your questions, that this evening’s session will get us quite far in allaying some of the concerns, as well as pave the way for the formal deliberations in the tripartite committee that the government has tasked with the monitoring and evaluation of this policy.
In fact within short this committee that has an informal status up to this moment will be formalized and its responsibilities and tasks will be clearly formulated. In fact, in the new situation, the Commissioner might be the chair of this committee, establishing a direct linking pin with the Executive Council.
I too have started the internal discussions regarding this policy and it is clear that we are going to face issues and situations that this policy and all you members of the tripartite committee could not have foreseen.
I fact, in the short time that I have managed this portfolio of Labor, circumstances and cases I have encountered in our labor market are beyond words. The effects of this on especially education are grave. Not only the cost factor, but the "grey" world of so many youngsters as far as their status is concerned. That’s not their fault. And it ultimately goes back to the employment status or lack there-of of their parents.
There are also many myths living out there with respect to the labor market of Sint Maarten.
We attempt with this policy to also bring these to light.
I expect a transparent execution, I expect a fair execution.
I expect consideration from business and labor for the common good. And if these expectations can be met, you have my consideration for your concerns and my commitment to seek ways of solving these.
Finally, do not underestimate the role of the appeal committee, also established by government and made very good use of. This should become common practice, as it is available to all who are in disagreement with a decision taken by government.
I wish you fruitful discussions. End
What do employers and employees alike, foreign and local workers, the general public know today with respect to the employment permit policy that went into effect on January 12, 2009 and government’s position with respect to this policy? Let’s see:
June 23rd: Commissioner Hyacinth Richardson: "government has withdrawn the 2008 work permit policy."
Commissioner William Marlin in a radio interview revealed that on June 16th 2009 the executive Council has decided to put aside the foreign employment permit policy and revert to the old policy. (Today, 23-6-09) Commissioner Hyacinth Richardson labeled this statement as "having slipped out".
On June 29th, this statement was repeated and it was claimed by commissioner William Marlin that " this information had not yet reached the various departments tasked with executing the policy".
5 days before this, the unions claimed not to have been informed about any withdrawal. (DH 24-6-09)
In the weekend of 4/5 July, Comm. Hyacinth Richardson told the Today and I quote; " the island resolution on the employment of foreign labor that went into effect on January 12, still stands and that he did not know exactly when the EXCO would withdraw it".
The leader of the NA/Heyliger Executive Council spoke a policy that terrorizes business. This flip-flopping of government is tantamount to hostage holding. The business sector and employees are being held hostage by government.
On June 27th 2009, unions (WIFOL, WITU, WICSU/PSU, UFA and ASEWI) and the chamber of commerce decided to request an immediate tripartite meeting to discuss the unilateral decision of the NA/Heyliger Executive Council.
The tripartite committee, chaired by the Commissioner of labor, Hyacinth Richardson met on June 30th and decided that they would move forward the planned August 2009 review of the employment permit policy. An emergency tripartite meeting was to be called.
That emergency meeting was finally called for July 31st, one month later and what was the outcome?
No consensus on the membership of the tripartite committee. The Commissioner of labor had a list provided by other committee members that did not include the chamber of commerce or the SHTA.
The Commissioner of labor stated that he got this list from other committee members, because his "office had made several attempts to obtain an official copy of the committee membership list from Government, but this has been unsuccessful and he had to rely on information from members."
Now what is wrong with this picture? The Commissioner of Labor is the government, so who is he blaming and who does he think he is fooling?
Does the commissioner think that the Chamber and the SHTA swallowed this explanation? On March 10th of this year, the executive Council of Sint Maarten agreed to the following composition of the tripartite committee: Chairperson, the Commissioner of labor, operational chairperson, head of labor and social affairs, 2 reps. of the WICLU; 2 reps of the Chamber; 2 reps of the ULF; 2 reps of the SHTA and a secretary and deputy secretary. This is an official Executive Council decision, recorded and filed. And it can’t be found?
Do the government and the commissioner of labor agree with statements like " the National Alliance is a business organization; businesses gave them campaign money and whether it is payback time" which have been levied publicly against this government ?
Do the government and the commissioner of labor concur with the chamber of commerce, that has cautioned "when making a policy or new law not to be under the pressure of foreign businesses in making or re-writing a policy"?
If the discourse by the leader of the NA/Heyliger executive council on July 14th of 2009 is anything to go by, during which he promised to address everything that is wrong on the labor market in Sint Maarten; and that the review of the 2009 employment permit policy will only take place when all else has been considered as well , then we have to conclude that the foreign employment permit policy of 2008 will be here for some time to come.
Considering this fact, and like we did on July 14th, we of the Democratic Party politely ask of government that they consider adopting and ratifying those changes to the employment permit policy of 2008, on which they is no difference of opinion with respect to the need to change such and which do not undermine the basic tenets of the policy itself.
This request becomes even more urgent when we consider that it has been announced that the execution of Brooks Tower Accord will commence in September. There must be a synchronization with this accord, the immigration policy of the Minister of Justice and the employment permit policy of the executive council of Sint Maarten.
Several persons would want to make it appear as if the coming into being of this foreign permit policy has been shrouded in secrecy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, last November, a package was sent to the island council of Sint Maarten, consisting of the following:
· The island resolution foreign employment 2008 and its elucidation
· Report regarding the tripartite recommendations regarding foreign employment and the adoption or not by the Executive Council of these recommendations.
· The letter of the Executive Council to the tripartite committee, informing them of same and again a report detailing the decisions of the Executive Council regarding the recommendations of the tripartite committee, the Employment Permits Appeal Committee, and the department of labor and social Affairs.
The executive in the same letter to the island council suggested, if so desired, a meeting of the central committee to discuss the subject matter.
No response was had from the National Alliance, then in opposition. Not a word.
I request that the secretariat again copies these documents to all members of the island council as in our opinion, it is a good starting position for the deliberations and review on the foreign employment permit policy of 2008.
The report of recommendations by the tripartite committee and the position of the executive council on these recommendations as decided on June 5th and 10th, 2008 can be held against the light during the review of the policy, if that is this government’s intention.
Again, there must be clarity with respect to government’s position on this matter. And the subject matter is not new to the NA/Heyliger executive council members. They knew of this at least since November 2008 and others longer.
Will the policy be reviewed or retracted?
When will this policy be reviewed or retracted? Tomorrow, Next week, next month?
The Commissioner of Labor seems to have his own unemployment agency going . And his own quota system. I arrive at these conclusions from the public statements of the Commissioner of labor to the developers of the Blue Mall project.
What happens to the numerous other persons who have followed procedure and registered at the labor office as required?
Don’t they get on the job band wagon of the Commissioner?
Should any-one still register as unemployed at the Labor Office?
What topics does the Commissioner of labor consider of immediate importance to be addressed or amended in the employment permit policy?
Is the Commissioner of labor coming with a complete new policy, a revised policy, or is government going back to the policy of 2003? Or will government have a policy at all?
The DP faction will present a motion, as we strongly feel that the following matters in the employment permit policy of 2008 need to be addressed and amended post haste:
· Housing requirements for extension of work permits
· Process for placing advertisements for jobs
· Exemptions from the moratorium listings for certain low skilled jobs
· A "grace period" for employers to make full use of the possibility created to legalize long time employees for whom a first time request for an employment permit is submitted.
· Special consideration for statutory directors of companies.
(these matters are taken up in the draft MOU, approved by the Executive Council on March 10, 2009)
The faction of Democratic Party recommends to the executive council in its review of the foreign employment permit policy the following matters as well: regulation of employment agencies; consideration of an administrative fee versus upfront work permit fee; and dispensation on the age limits of the work permit policy of 2008. We recommend that in line with the draft Memorandum of Understanding regarding the work permit policy, approved on March 10 last, these measures be taken now to last at least through December 2009 during which time further review and amplification can be accomplished. These changes need to be effected now.
As is the need to amend article 3, sub 2j with respect to the intention declaration to be given by the lt. governor to persons residing on the island for a long time, enabling these persons to legalize their status. The Lt. governor by letter of March 20th informed the Commissioner of Labor that the Executive Council can not include such a clause in the policy. A method must therefore be found to achieve the objective of legalizing as much as possible the status of workers on the island.
This faction refuses to allow such an important matter to become embroiled in a stand-off, where no party wishes to budge on their stance.
And finally, we of the Democratic Party faction do want to make use of the offer made in the letter of the Executive Council to discuss the subject matter in a meeting of the central committee, with the objective to come to a consensus between all social partners regarding the employment permit policy and labor issues in general.