Doran: We don’t need another committee to discuss GEBE, “what’s the difference?”

GREAT BAY--Egbert Doran on Wednesday questioned whether the proposed ad hoc committee on sustainable and affordable electricity and water will produce measurable results for residents, arguing that the public needs stability, clarity, and relief, not another set of meetings that fails to change conditions on the ground.

Doran made the remarks during a public meeting of the Parliament of St. Maarten as Members debated the advice of the Committee for Petitions on establishing an ad hoc committee related to NV GEBE and related matters.

MP Doran opened by stating that Parliament has had “meeting after meeting” on the GEBE situation, and said he does not believe people need another headline. He said residents need stability, clarity, and relief, and he supports any serious effort to fix the problem, provided it results in action that “moves the needle.”

Referring to the petition and public complaints, Doran listed issues he said people are living through, including frequent outages, inflated and confusing bills, threats of disconnection, and a lack of transparency. He stressed that these are not abstract political talking points but day-to-day realities affecting families trying to keep the lights on, businesses trying to survive, and seniors trying to budget.

What will the ad hoc committee do differently

While acknowledging the reasoning behind forming another committee, Doran questioned what this ad hoc committee would do differently than the Central Committee or other parliamentary mechanisms, including OVA-style approaches. He noted that Parliament has already had updates, urgent meetings, and public meetings, yet in his view, residents have not seen change.

He also raised concerns about repeated cancellations of closed-door meetings and said he hoped an upcoming closed-door meeting would not be cancelled again. He said Parliament needs clarity on oversight and asked for a clear, concrete angle and serious timelines before establishing a new committee.

Doran said he does not want the process to become another way to delay decisions, arguing that the public could interpret another committee as “kicking the can down the road.” He expressed concern that the discussion could become a cycle where Government shifts responsibility to former boards, then uses new structures to slow progress until the next election cycle.

Access to information, NDAs, and Government compliance

Doran questioned whether an ad hoc committee would have access to information Parliament currently cannot obtain. He asked directly whether the committee would gain access to NDAs and whether it would function as a mechanism that Government must comply with, rather than becoming another forum that produces discussions without outcomes.

He urged colleagues to address these questions, stating that without a change in access and authority, Parliament risks repeating the same patterns and remaining locked in what he described as a “vicious circle” without results.

Doran also placed his remarks in context by referencing his own previous initiative. He said that on August 30, 2024, he formally proposed a National Supervisory Committee for GEBE in a letter to the Prime Minister. He said the proposal was designed to ensure representation from all factions and to remove political bias by giving all parties a seat at the table to reach calm, collective conclusions to move the country forward, particularly in the context of what he described as an energy crisis.

He said his intention then and now remains the same: to establish a structure that can deliver solutions rather than extend debate.

Call for transparency in the public record

MP Doran said he reviewed the Central Committee report but wants additional information reflected for transparency and to provide a clear historical record. He said the report references the November 5, 2025 letter submitted by MP Otley acting on behalf of members of the public, the petition attached to that letter, and a motion passed in Parliament.

Doran said he wants that motion and his August 30, 2024 letter, including the date it was initiated, to be clearly reflected in the report so the public record shows what actions were taken and when.

He also cautioned that Parliament has created multiple ad hoc committees in the past, including those focused on major institutional matters, and questioned whether another committee will deliver progress if key powers and access are not clearly defined.

Proposal timeline outlined by the Chairlady

Chairlady Sarah Wescot-Williams outlined that the agenda point concerned advice on the Committee for Petitions’ proposal to establish an ad hoc committee related to NV GEBE and related matters.

She said Parliament has held several meetings over the years on complaints and issues surrounding NV GEBE, including challenges experienced by the population related to water and electricity.

The Chairlady explained that on November 5, 2025, Parliament received a letter from MP Otley, acting on behalf of members of the public, addressing what was described as a critical situation regarding NV GEBE. The attached document titled “Petition to the Government of St. Maarten” was registered as IS290.

She said the Committee of Petitions considered the submission on January 13, 2026, concluded it did not meet petition requirements under the Committee’s regulations, but still deemed it relevant and in the public interest. As a result, the Committee proposed establishing an ad hoc committee to address public concerns related to NV GEBE.

She further said a draft proposal was prepared under Article 21, paragraph 4 of the Rules of Order, and that the Committee of Petitions agreed on January 30, 2026 to propose an ad hoc committee on Sustainable and Affordable Electricity and Water. The Committee report was registered as incoming document IS646, dated February 4, 2026.

A Central Committee meeting on the matter was held on February 9, 2026, and the Central Committee requested the public meeting to approve the proposal, taking into account an addition described in the Central Committee’s advice.

Brief adjournment extends, meeting postponed without explanation

After MP Doran’s contribution, the Chairlady indicated there were no other speakers listed at that time and adjourned the meeting for what was presented as a five-minute break. The adjournment extended far longer than five minutes. When the Chairlady later returned, she announced that the meeting would be postponed until a later date. No explanation was provided for the extended delay or the decision to postpone.

‍