~ Due to breaches of integrity ~
ST. EUSTATIUS--Former Commissioner of the Island Government of St. Eustatius Astrid McKenzie-Tatem will not get her job back as team leader at the Tax Department Caribbean Netherlands, the Civil Servants Court ruled Friday.
McKenzie had wanted to take up her duties at the tax office again after she was forced to resign as Commissioner of Finance in November 2016, but Government Department Caribbean Netherlands RCN did not want her back due to serious breaches of integrity during her stint as a member of the Executive Council.
On Friday, the Judge agreed with McKenzie’s employer, the Minister of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations BZK.
McKenzie had filed a petition with the Court against the government’s decree for her dismissal of August 30, 2017. The petition was filed in October 2017, with the case being heard by a judge on June 16, 2018.
McKenzie-Tatem, Tax Department Managing Director Nichalin Martina and V. Sijben of the Ministry of Finance were present at the hearing.
Dereliction of duty
According to BZK, McKenzie has been guilty of very serious dereliction of duty. The ministry based this on three incidents that occurred in 2015 while she was a commissioner on behalf of the coalition of Progressive Labour Party (PLP) and independent Island Council member Reuben Merkman.
BZK claimed that McKenzie had abused her position as a commissioner in attempting to have her brother appointed as Interim-Head of Finance in June 2015. She had taken the initiative for her brother’s appointment, had actively taken part in the decision-making process and had not clearly indicated that it concerned her brother.
The ministry also held it against McKenzie that she had played a dubious role in the proposal of July 9, 2015, to appoint a civil servant working for the Island Government as Personnel and Organisation (P&O) Director.
The person in question had previously applied for the position of Acting Island Secretary, but was turned down because it was at that time not possible to fill vacant positions because of the commitment stop (verplichtingenstop).
Nevertheless, McKenzie had suggested transferring the civil servant to the position of P&O Director without motivating whether this person was qualified for the job and without the required consultations with the Island Secretary.
The third incident took place in September 2015, when McKenzie ordered the administrator of the Information Technology (IT) Department to grant certain rights in the so-called AFAS system for Human Resources and payroll software to two workers at the Finance Department without the Executive Council’s permission.
According to BZK, the dereliction of duty was serious enough to justify unconditional dismissal. The ministry said the former commissioner’s behaviour had seriously breached her integrity and reliability.
Because it was known in Statia that she had worked for the Tax Department, this also affected the Department’s and RCN’s integrity. RCN maintains a strict integrity policy which is even stronger at the tax office, it was added.
‘Edge of decency’
As holder of a political office, one should have expected a higher sense of norms, BZK said of McKenzie. Statia’s small scale, which involves risks that business interests and personal interests are mixed, makes the importance of honest behaviour even more important, the ministry said.
In its choice for dismissal, the ministry had also weighed how McKenzie, according to e-mail messages, had dealt with the island secretary. “This balances on the edge of decency,” the ministry said.
McKenzie claimed that her dismissal was in violation of the principle of legal certainty, as the alleged incidents had taken place in 2015 and the decision for her dismissal was taken almost two years later, in July 2017. She said dismissal was disproportionate and in violation of the principle of trust.
Where her brother’s appointment was concerned, she said the decision was not executed and that it was “common knowledge” that it involved her brother. She said she had acted on the Executive Council’s wishes and had selected her brother because he was qualified and suitable for the job.
Concerning the appointment of the P&O official, McKenzie said she had acted in the interests of Statia in searching for a candidate within the civil service. She was of the opinion that she had found a suitable candidate. Besides, she had not made an actual proposal after she had learned there was a commitment stop in place. Therefore, it could not be said that she had deliberately failed to act with integrity.
In the third incident, McKenzie said it had not become clear which instruction she had breached and why she would have required permission. Moreover, she would have acted in the interest of the island, she said.
The Judge said the proposal to appoint her brother made McKenzie guilty of dereliction of duty as a civil servant, also because she had disregarded the Dutch Government’s Representative’s negative advice on the matter.
The Court acknowledged that McKenzie had failed to follow the rules and had not consulted with the Island Secretary about the appointment of a P&O official. It was also “not good” that she had nominated a woman without proper qualifications, but this did not entail that “evil intent” was proven. Therefore, these actions were not qualified as dereliction of duty.
It was found it proven that the former commissioner had failed to obtain the Executive Council’s permission to grant certain rights to two IT Department employees.
“The complainant has repeatedly received signals that her actions were not correct. For example, the Government Representative advised her negatively on the appointment of her brother, she obtained a negative advice from the Finance Department and the Island Secretary pointed out to her that nominations should go through him. This has not led to a better understanding of the meaning of integrity, also in view of the complainant’s position in this procedure.
“It is, therefore, not unjust that the defendant did not give the complainant the opportunity to improve herself,” the Judge stated in the verdict.
The Court said the dismissal for unsuitability for the position was not disproportionate, considering the nature and seriousness of the neglect of duty and the complainant’s “other” conduct. Therefore, McKenzie’s case was declared unfounded.
An appeal can be made against the decision.
