“Temporary”, and “Acting” Positions in our Political Culture

Let me start by congratulating the very affable, very approachable, often smiling Ms. Iris Arrindell on her recent appointment as “Temporary Manager” of the beleaguered utility company, GEBE. It was her appointment that triggered this article.

If you’ve been following the news lately, your head must probably be spinning from the sheer number of prefixes floating around government buildings and corporate boardrooms. Between the sudden managerial vacuum created at GEBE, and the perennial acting positions in government organization, our headlines are packed with words like: “Temporary,” and “Acting,” that are attached to certain positions of authority.

To the average person sitting at a local bar with their beverage of preference in hand, these words probably sound like splitting hairs. Aren't they all just fancy ways of referring to "the person filling in for someone else who is the permanent occupant of that position"?

Not even close. Under our local laws—including the civil service guidelines of the LMA—and corporate articles of incorporation, these titles could mean the difference between having the power to sign a multi-million-guilder contract or merely keeping the office chairs warm.

But before going any further, it is important to make some pertinent observations. First, it is obvious that “temporary” and “acting” are time bound. They are transitional in both nature and purpose and are certainly not meant to last beyond a reasonable period of time.

But, what is a reasonable timeframe? To answer this, we have to look at the massive gap between what the law intended versus our political reality or should I say, “political culture.”

1. The Turnover Tax (ToT) Example

It is generally accepted that in public finance, a temporary tax or crisis measure is theoretically supposed to last only as long as the specific crisis it was built to fix—usually between 1 to 3 years. Once the economy stabilizes or a permanent solution is approved, the temporary measure is supposed to be withdrawn.

Not so on St. Martin.

Here, “temporary" is often understood to mean "until further, further notice." In other words, “permanently”.

The Turnover Tax (ToT) is the ultimate example of this. It was introduced back in 1996 as a temporary 3% emergency levy by then Prime Minister of the now defunct Netherlands Antilles, Miguel Pourier. The measure was introduced in spite of St. Martin having been hit by the monstrous Hurricane Luis barely a year earlier. Many people still remember the famous statement by a St. Martin representative in the Antillean parliament that “Hurricane or no Hurricane” St. Martin must pay the ToT. And pay we did.

More than 30 years later, not only has the “temporary” ToT not been repealed, but in late 2010, the government actually increased it from 3% to 5% to plug budget deficits when St. Martin attained its new constitutional status.  

It is universally accepted that a truly reasonable timeframe for an emergency tax is 24 to 36 months. Anything beyond that ceases to be a crisis measure and becomes a permanent pillar of the fiscal policy — which is exactly what has happened to the ToT.

We should, therefore, be able to agree that the phrase "nothing is more permanent than a temporary government measure" is practically a law of physics in public policy on our island.

What can I say about the “temporary”

members of the Supervisory Board of Directors (SBOD) of the Central Bank of Curacao and St. Maarten (CBCS) that Minister of Finance Marinka Gumbs hasn’t explained over and over already? Suffice it to say that members who were “temporarily” appointed some five to eight years ago are still serving in that  same “temporary” capacity today! And we’re talking here about the supervisory body of the apex bank which regulates our monetary union with Curacao!

2. The "Temporary" Corporate Manager

As I said at the beginning, the recent appointment of Ms. Iris Arrindell as Temporary Manager of GEBE NV. was the spark for this article. She is the sixth person appointed in a “temporary” role to head the utility company since November 2020. That is an average of one “Temporary”/“Interim/“Transition” Manager per year! And we wonder what is wrong with GEBE? What was the public outcry when we were having a similar situation with coalition governments that lasted one year on the average?

In government-owned companies (like NV GEBE), a Temporary Manager (Tijdelijk Bestuurder) is legally appointed to fill an unexpected executive vacuum.

Under corporate governance codes, this person serves as a bridge. Their sole objective is to keep the company steady while the Supervisory Board of Directors conducts a proper, transparent screening and recruitment process for a permanent Managing Director.

The reality on St. Martin, however, has been that temporary corporate appointments sometimes drag on for a year or more rather than the short term - six months or so - it is supposed to last. This is sometimes due to political gridlock, disagreements between the supervisory boards and the shareholder (government), or delays in the integrity screening processes.

However, when a "temporary" manager stays in place for over a year, it risks blurring the lines of accountability and stalling the company’s long-term strategic investments. In fact, GEBE's Articles of Incorporation originally envisioned temporary management strictly as a brief stopgap rather than a multi-year structural norm.

Here the case of Ms. Arrindell deserves special attention. She has served on GEBE’s management board as Chief Financial Officer (CFO) - part of a triumvirate that included current MP Veronica Jansen-Webster (COO) and Mr. Kenrick Chittick (CEO). They jointly oversaw the operations of the company at one of the most challenging times of its existence.

Keeping Ms. Arrindell in this temporary position indefinitely would not only be unfair to her as an employee who is called upon to out fires, it would also send the wrong message about trusting our own people to run legacy institutions like the utility company. The question the relevant authorities would have to answer if the top job goes to another foreign “expert” is: how come Ms. Arrindell, for example, is good enough to be CFO, good enough to be Temporary Manager, but not good enough to be the substantive Managing Director?

3. The "Acting" Trap

Similarly, “Acting” positions, especially in the Civil Service corps, conjures up the specter of permanence. Under standard administrative principles, an acting appointment should strictly not exceed one year, although typically, a reasonable timeframe for an “Acting” position should be no more than between 3 to 6 months.

“Actors in Hollywood act for about that same period,” noted a good friend of mine in discussing the topic recently. The pun was obviously intended.

If a department head is suspended, dismissed from office, retires or resigns for whatever reason, a senior civil servant within the department is normally asked to step up as the "Acting Head" to keep the wheels turning. Ideally, the government should immediately open an official, competitive application process to permanently fill the vacancy within a few months.

The "Indefinite Acting" Issue

In practice, however, you will frequently find civil servants who have been the "Acting Head" of a department for 3, 5, 7 or even more years. This happens for a few reasons:

a. Political Stalemate: The ruling coalition cannot agree on a permanent political appointee for the job.

b. Budget Constraints: Formally opening a slot for a permanent department head requires a full budgetary commitment and structural approval.

c. The LMA Burden: Permanently appointing someone requires a formal National Decree (Landsbesluit), which must pass through a gauntlet of internal checks, including the Governor’s office. Leaving someone as "Acting" is often used as a bureaucratic shortcut to avoid the red tape.

The powers of an “Acting” official is actually limited. The official is there to handle "daily routine." They can supervise staff, sign off on standard paperwork, and keep the doors of the department open.

However, there’s a catch: they cannot make sweeping policy changes, restructure the department, or sign major new long-term contracts. They are placeholders, acting on behalf of a vacant seat. They don't own the vision; they just keep the machine running.

Leaving someone in "Acting" limbo for years is unfair to the official in question and toxic to governance. The acting head carries the same stress and responsibility of the top job—often without the full permanent salary scale or the institutional authority required to make long-term structural changes to improve their department. This invariably hurts the system.

So, what must be done to improve the system?

‍