Dear Editor,

And so, parliamentarian Maurice Lake has made a speech in which he says directly that GEBE needs to support rather than, in polite language, screw its solar clients. Good for him for getting on the right side of what is a legitimate and critical issue. Combine that with a supportive, if weak, editorial in this paper and if you are a solar client like me, you might get that warm and fuzzy feeling like something positive is about to happen. Ok, everybody that believes that raise your hand. I don’t believe it for a minute because it is a typical posture and response that critical issues get over and over.

Somebody blocks a beach access? Outrage at the political level; chest beating and speeches; Editorials; letters to the Editor; demands for a beach policy (that a sixth grader could write effectively in 30 minutes); and what happens after years of “debate?” Nothing!

Name your issue and it’s always the same. I fear, and feel with near certainty, that this is the case here again.

A critical and vital public issue where a PUBLIC (and I emphasize PUBLIC ) utility who is ostensibly under the control and authority of the government and who is charged with the absolute responsibility of adhering to a “good public policy” is acting in what some might describe as a borderline criminal fashion. Their representatives for years have told people that they could install solar and, in so many words, get net metering. They went out of their way to say nobody would get paid for the surplus power and for the record no one is asking to get paid; quite the opposite. To a man, the solar clients are happy to gift any and all surplus energy straight to GEBE to be resold by them at retail and a 100 per cent profit margin.

All we ask is to get what we were promised and what, for three years was reality i.e. net metering. Lots of people spent a huge amount of money in good faith to become energy independent and now, in a capricious, arbitrary and some would say illegal move, GEBE sees fit to go back on their word.

In the United States it would be easy. A consumer would walk into the Government building, meet a nice young lady at the front desk of the Public Utilities Commission and in fifteen minutes file a complaint. By 8:00 the next morning the director of the utility would be cooling his heels in the office of the Attorney General answering some tough questions and facing a state sponsored injunction and some serious fines and penalties.

Who is in charge here? Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that GEBE announced tomorrow they would no longer sell electricity to anyone of Indian descent and went and took all their meters. Exactly whose job in Government would it be to jump to their feet and shout “They can’t do that! Get me the director on the phone and then send a detective over there to arrest him.” This situation is no different than that. GEBE is acting well outside their concession with this policy and needs to have their leash yanked and pulled back into line. Whose job is that? Who’s in charge here?

So, Minister Lake and Editorial board at the Herald. Prove me wrong. Actually do something about this. Call GEBE on the carpet and hold their feet to the fire. Tell them what they are doing is not only wrong as a matter of law and a direct violation of their concession where they are bound to “good public policy” but ethically, morally and socially as well and force them to reverse this policy. It should not be incumbent on we the consumers to sue them. They work for you and answer to you the Government. It’s your job to sue them. Please, prove me wrong about the futility of all the speeches and chest-beating. Please.

There was some irony in the paper yesterday as well. In my first letter last week, the closing paragraph was an offer to share with GEBE a proposal and plan that I had prepared for a local resort here for a one Megawatt system that could be done complete for four million or so. The paragraph was cut out for space reasons. Ironically, today, here is Anguilla doing the same thing for 3.3 million. Good for them and a clear example of what can be when selfish interests are held in check by a responsible Government and a utility that doesn’t have its head where the sun never shines.

Steven Johnson

Dear Editor,

Over the past five years, St. Maarten has undergone serious growth trauma. From unstable Governments, the worst financial crisis ever in our history, an escalation in crime, unemployment to other unattended social issues. These issues all require urgent attention but they can only be effectively dealt with through unity between Government and Parliament.

According to the Constitution of St. Maarten, Articles 82 to 89 clearly outline Government and Parliament working together in the best interest of the people of St. Maarten.

The Story of the Tower of Babel in the Bible, Genesis 11:1-8, presents a clear picture of what can happen when people unite…. Genesis 11:6 And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; NOW NOTHING THAT THEY PROPOSE TO DO WILL BE WITHHELD FROM THEM.”

If the 15 members to be elected to Parliament were to recommend a Council of Ministers and all were to clearly understand what it means what it means to work together as one, in order to serve the people, then they will transform St. Maarten into a prosperous and healthy nation because NOTHING THAT THEY PROPOSE TO DO WILL BE WITHHELD FROM THEM.

“The power in unity can only be effectively achieved where teamwork and cooperation are practiced.”

Lisa Alexander

Dear Editor,

On behalf of the owners and the tenants of the Royal Village we wanted to let you know that the septic issue reported on your front page is not being generated by the Royal Village, Pineapple Pete or the Rhino Safari or any other occupant of the Village, as some may have misunderstood from your article.

Dear Editor,

The Constitution of Sint Maarten was unanimously adopted by the island council of Sint Maarten on July 21, 2010, and entered into force on October 10, 2010, the date of the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles.

The Constitution does not grant anyone or any entity the authority to postpone or cancel a Dissolution Decree once it has “entered into force” by publication, according to Article 89, including His Excellency drs Eugene Holiday, The Council of Ministers or Parliament of Sint Maarten.

A dissolution of Parliament requires new Elections. Therefore, elections must be held according to the Dissolution Decree (Landbesluit Van de 28e oktober 2015, no. LB-15/0951) on February 9, 2016.

Article 59 of the Constitution, unlike Article 33, is an Article that must be enforced “as is.”

Article 59:

1. Parliament may be dissolved by national decree.

2. An order for dissolution shall also require new elections to be held for Parliament which has been dissolved and the newly elected Parliament to meet within three months.

3. The dissolution shall take effect on the day on which the newly elected Parliament meets.

We, the people of Sint Maarten “… declare that we are a people that believe in the principle of democracy, the rule of law, the principle of the segregation of powers, the dignity and value of the individual, the entitlement of all persons to the fundamental rights and freedoms; …”

Lisa Alexander