Tone @ the Top

SOAB is the organization that functions as the internal auditor of the government of the Netherlands Antilles. Fifteen (I always thought 2010 – 1994 = 16…) years in business and claims to ‘know government’; SOAB has conducted research on how permits were and are granted within the sector ROB (ruimtelijke ordening & beheer/area planning and management). They were requested to do so on the third of February 09 by the ExCo. A year later their 32 page report, with an analysis of the administrative organization of ROB and its internal control measures, appeared.

Amongst others, SOAB has studied
- relevant judicial aspects,
- the permits that were granted in the past (05- march 09),
- processes and measures to maintain internal control,
- conducted procedure tests on correct- and completeness,
- technical aspects
- conducted interviews with the management and (ex)employees of ROB
All that to find an answer to the question: To which extend do employees of ROB grant permits lawfully/legitimately?

Note though, that the selection of files on (big) projects up for examination, was a RANDOM sample of projects that have been discussed in the media frequently. SOAB, unfortunately, did not receive all the dossiers they requested.
A total of 165 dossiers on building permits (combined worth: NAf. 400.000.000) from 05-09 have been analyzed. This was just 9 percent of all registered building requests in that period. 26 dossiers (including Blue Mall, Coral Beach Club, The Palms, Lighthouse, Opal Suites) that were requested, were held back for vague reasons, which SOAB has decided not to look into (?).

Now for the Results
Based on their rigorous analysis, SOAB concludes that systems of internal risk control and control with regard to the granting of various permits is not sufficiently present and in some cases even absent. Nevertheless, there are some standard forms, so some standard procedures and internal guidelines do exist. Problem is, these procedures miss certain crucial points (leads to extra risks) and are filled out incorrectly and/or incompletely.
Standard procedures, in use today do not, for example, guarantee that all requests and permits are registered. SOAB also concludes that there appear to be no formal internal guidelines with regard to certain relevant aspects, e.g. there is no deadline set before which ROB must have responded to a request for a permit, nor are tariffs formalized, and as we have noticed before all adequate guidelines with regard to keeping an orderly archive to safeguard the quality of the dossiers and service, remain absent. Files could even be found in a restroom (?!) and were badly damaged by water.

Judicial aspects
SOAB finds that legislature & regulations used within ROB are ancient (or whatever you call things dating from the year 1935) and therefore not wholly applicable. Moreover, certain laws have not been sufficiently elaborated, as is the case in other parts of the NA. This leaves room for (creative?) individual interpretations of the legislature & regulations. Also, ROB has insufficient adequate control measures at its disposal to grant permits.

I’m not going to discuss the exact outcomes of the analysis (see page 10 of the report for a depressing checklist), just a few facts. The report mentions a quantitative and qualitative deficit within the Permits Department of ROB. All current employees have a MBO-diploma, except for the head of the department. For all Anglophone readers, MBO is more or less vocational education. As a result, complex projects are not duly evaluated. Dollison, Director of ROB, claims that during the last two years all mega-projects have been passed on to a special team consisting of a minimum of three department heads. SOAB then, examined these mega-projects (Aquarius & Caravanseray) and were sorry to find various shortcomings in the said dossiers (too bad Bijlage/Attachment 2 and 3 are absent!).
Next point is that it seems pressure is being applied on VROM/Building Permits by both Dollison and members of the ExCo.
An employee of ROB basically tells SOAB that he pays little attention to legislature or regulations. Instead, he values his experience. Close examination by SOAB has confirmed this employee’s modus operandi.

So we move on to the Inspection Department…
Inspections have not been conducted adequately (often not) an example: the Blue Harbour building is twice (!) as big as the floor plan of the building they were granted a permit for. It is unclear why no measures have been taken, while there do appear to have been a few inspections.
There are even cases, analyzed by SOAB, that point to the strange idea DROB seems to have about his power to decide whether the law is applicable or not. La loi, c’est DROB? Lol!
Now, for safety: fire prevention. Only 20% of all building requests receives an advice from the Fire Department. Not that anything is done with these, but you know, for the record :)

Due to the quality of some scans like page 17 & 20 some information is lacking here. Pardonnez-moi.

Anyway, the report goes on with saying that some employees, such as the DROB and his deputy, are far too amiable folks. For instance, they meet with developers outside office hours and forget legislature if that suits the developers’ fancy.
As mentioned before, legislature and regulations are not only disregarded but are also ancient and incomplete. The consequences of which include individual interpretation and ARBITRARINESS. SOAB calls that undesirable… my word would be ‘corruption’, but this is not my report…

Quite a number of buildings on this island were built without a permit and are presently still illegitimate. ROB is aware of this, but takes no measures. And as no sanctions follow illegitimate actions, such as, the taking down of buildings constructed without a permit, ROB loses all credibility. But the worst thing is, the island’s landscape is completely destroyed and nothing can undo that damage. So, F U ROB!

SOAB demanded a registration of the permits requested and granted under the nuisance/hindrance act from DROB, but has never received any. From the interviews conducted with employees of ROB becomes clear that this ordinance is fully replaced by individual interpretations (?!). Employees, for example, are firmly persuaded that noise pollution is not mentioned in the nuisance act, while this is false (see article 11).

The way permits are granted on SXM is simply irresponsible.
Requests are insufficiently considered, but do get the green light.
Permits are being granted without legal basis.
Even after faults have been found in the evaluation by ROB, permits are blindly granted.
The employees conducting the evaluations do not or do not know how to apply legislature.
However, they do apply: Tone at the top. Which means that one does certain things while one is aware of them not being allowed or right, but one justifies this by pointing out that the person who bears final responsibility does not set the right example.
From the interviews, SOAB could conclude that everyone within the sector ROB, management included, had some sort of individual interest in certain projects and represented that interest accordingly.
Employees also said they had been offered money in the past (bribes) but of course they had refused to accept it. Hands up who thinks these people are veritable angels and half gods? Lol, OK, so as you might suspect, SOAB was unable to find any supporting evidence for these statements.

Next, the two (corrected :P) points from the conclusion, mentioned in an earlier post:
1. DROB lacks both crucial managerial and technical skills, which explains his incapability to fulfill his tasks properly;
2. DROB has wittingly taken certain actions c.q. neglected taking certain actions.

The recommendation to the ExCo by SOAB includes reorganizing the ROB, getting rid of the current management (could be given disciplinary punishment considering the fact they have infringed lid 1 and 2 of article 82 of the Landsverordening Materieel Ambtenarenrecht/LMA), appointment of interim manager (from outside ROB). Also, it is recommended that all employees should be forbidden (subito) to conduct any of their sideline activities without permission (LMA, art. 55). Moreover, all employees needy of should get not only extra training in applying current legislature and regulations, but also in dealing with pressure and integrity. SOAB goes on with recommending that the case ought to be handed over to the Public Prosecution Service, since SOAB does not have the power to prosecute. in addition, SOAB recommends that govt revoke the mandate given to DROB, as a result of the findings of this report. The legislature from 1935 needs to be elaborated by for example adding what the other islands within the Dutch Kingdom have added over the years. The nuisance act needs to be updated. Lowlands needs a zoning plan. Inspection should take place and if the construction of a building is not according to the floor plan for which they were granted a permit, measures should be taken accordingly. If nothing is done, no landmark decision will ever set a legal precedent.

So there, that’s why this island’s an architectural drama.

Thanks a lot ROB. You guys are really doing this island a great service.

And now, read this to cheer up :)