PHILIPSBURG--Three draft motions presented by the National Alliance
(NA) during Monday's highly anticipated Parliament meeting on the validity of the vote of United People's (UP) party Member of Parliament (MP) Jules James on an issue in which he was involved a proxy last November were voted down eight to six Monday.
MPs voted along party lines with the UP/Democratic Party/Illidge coalition voting against the motions, contending that Article 53 which NA claimed had been violated was unclear, while NA MPs and independent MP Frans Richardson voted for the motions.
NA leader MP William Marlin, who said some coalition MPs had agreed to support the motions during a meeting with NA on Saturday, noted that the voting showed that the "coalition is back in line and the ducks have been lined up" (see related story).
Some controversy erupted when President of Parliament Gracita Arrindell voted on the first motion, which made specific reference to her and her role as President of Parliament. Although NA MPs raised concerns that Arrindell had been violating article 53 of the constitution by voting on a matter concerning her and her position, the vote was maintained (see related story).
Unlike the November 17, 2011, meeting, James was present at yesterday's session, but did not participate in the debate. When it was time to vote, he was not present in the hall, which prompted independent MP Frans Richardson to say that James had recognised his error and stayed away from the voting.
Correct error
The NA had maintained that the violation of Article 53 of the constitution that had occurred when James voted on its draft motion on November 17, 2011, had to be corrected. William Marlin said the "violation" could not be "brushed aside as a mistake" for Parliament to continue with "business as usual."
He said James consciously had voted on the motion to prevent its being passed. He said the invalid vote never had been rectified or stricken from the records and never had been addressed.
He said an MP working as a General Manager of a Resort had to take orders from owners and shareholders and there were expectations of the General Manager in terms of protecting the interest of the resort.
"In the meeting of November 17, it was clear that a conflict of interest was constituted not by the vote, which was a violation, but in the matters leading up to the vote. The MP has to, by virtue of being the General Manager, defend the interest of the resort which had taken a decision to dismiss employees. As manager he had to carry out that decision of the owners and as MP he has to defend the interest of the people of St. Maarten."
Marlin also argued that when drafting the Constitution of St. Maarten, the lawmaker at the time had made several issues clear: that being an MP was a full time job and that the salaries of MP were meant as an incentive to attract professional persons to give up their private sector jobs and become Members of Parliament.
He said too that when the constitution was being established DP Island Council members had insisted on knowing the salaries MPs would earn so that they could encourage and attract persons from the private sector to give up their jobs and participate in the governing process of Country St. Maarten by contesting the elections.
Armed with a copy of the Country St. Maarten Constitution, NA MP Louie Laveist said he deliberately had been holding the document upside down because if Parliament "allowed this mistake to go unaddressed, uncontested" and "uncorrected" then "the very foundation that liberty of the people exists on could be at stake.
"It can't be said that the chair is conspirator to violating the constitution," Laveist said.
Unclear
Some coalition MPs suggested that Article 53 Subsection 1 of the constitution was not clear enough to suggest James' vote had been in violation of the document.
The actual wording of Article 53 as taken from the constitution states: "The Members of the Parliament shall abstain from voting on issues or appointments, including suspensions and dismissals, that personally affect them, their spouses, and their relations by blood or marriage up to and including the second degree, or in which they are involved as proxies."
Roy Marlin said Parliament should not act "based on emotions" or based on how one individual MP or one parliamentary group "feels that a law should be interpreted" or "how the governor feels."
"When I look at the constitution I have a different opinion than some of the MPs," Roy Marlin said, adding that in his opinion an MP should not be allowed to vote on an issue only if he would gain personally from that issue.
In presenting several scenarios, he asked whether he should abstain from voting on a motion on an issue that involved his spouse or whether he should abstain from voting on an issue involving his brother.
"I have my opinion on the role that James played. ... I believe that my colleague James should have been more politically sensitive to the issue as it pertains to the dismissal of the workers. If I was in his position, I would have stepped back, but that's an issue for James to decide on. ... We have to look at the law that governs the conflict situation of MPs and there is a grey line and we have to be able to determine where you cross that line," Roy Marlin said.
He suggested that Parliament ask the "Raad van Staten" [Council of State, ed.] for an interpretation of the relevant article.
He also suggested that the discussions on this matter be closed "once and for all" because while this specific matter was about James, it could be about any MP in the future. He also suggested that Parliament adopt specific legislation to deal with issues of concern and said he looked forward to Laveist presenting his draft legislation on MPs who have full-time jobs outside of Parliament.
DP MP Leroy de Weever said the subject was not clear to him. He said while he would condemn James for his position on the Simpson Bay Resort issue, this was a matter for James' and the voters' account.
MPs, he added, had the option of amending the relevant article of the constitution.
"We have a situation where the issue of one of the members might have overshadowed the interest of the people, but is that a violation of the constitution? If I am going to vote I will side with the people, but I can't take a private business or private enterprise and decide that one of the members is in violation. It would be a clear violation if this enterprise has requested an additional 10-year tax holiday, which means that someone is a beneficiary of that," he said.
UP MP Romain Laville said that while he agreed that certain actions could not be condoned, he wondered whether MPs would have given "two hoots" about the plight of the Simpson Bay Resort workers if James had not been involved. He said if MPs really cared about this issue, it should be addressed legislatively. He said MPs in Curaçao didn't have two jobs and the same could be done in St. Maarten if addressed in a law.
UP MP Sylvia Olivacce-Meyers said MPs were "all humans" who occasionally made mistakes, but noted "there is room for correction." She said while "the constitution should be Parliament's bible, there is a bigger bible than the constitution. ... We need to respect the constitution and uphold our oath that we took."
Frans Richardson said everyone seemed to have their own interpretation of "what they think" the constitution says. He said nothing was wrong with MPs requesting "more information" for clarity on an article in the constitution. He said too that a clear indication was needed as to whether the constitution had been violated "so we can put this issue to rest."
Motions
In its first draft motion, NA said Arrindell had violated Article 53 of the constitution by allowing James to vote on a motion in a meeting on November 17, 2011, in which "it had been clearly established that he was a proxy, being the General Manager of Simpson Bay Resort Management Company."
In the second motion NA said James had violated the Constitution when he voted on the motion in question. NA alluded to statements James had made in the press in December 2010 and again in January 2011, when faced with conflict of interest accusations, that he would not vote on any issue that might present a conflict of interest in relation to the resort.
In its third motion, NA said given the ongoing public debate about an MP having another fulltime job besides being an MP, Parliament should ask the Advisory Council for advice on how to deal with this issue and to advise specifically on whether having another fulltime job besides being an MP was in conflict with the constitution.
NA contended that Article 44 of the Constitution stated that Parliament represented the entire population and in accordance with Article 56, MPs promised to uphold the Constitution and champion the interest of St. Maarten to the best of their ability. NA said an ongoing public debate on this issue should be avoided, as it was not in the interest of the image of Parliament and its members.
Restaurants Social networking War crimes World Cup 2018 Supermarkets Florida
No comments:
Post a Comment