URSM Board: Legal warnings were ignored, contract issue was no oversight or mistake

GREAT BAY--The Governing Board of the Unified Resilient St. Maarten Movement (URSM), through President Brenda Brooks, has issued a detailed response (in posession of The Peoples' Tribune) to Minister (now former) of Public Health, Social Development and Labor Richinel Brug, stating that the documentary record in the matter reflects what the Board describes as a clear and consistent sequence of events involving the awarding of contracts, warnings about conflict of interest, and alleged violations of Article 54 of the Landsverordening Materieel Ambtenarenrecht (LMA).

In its May 26, 2026 letter, addressed to then Minister Brug in response to his correspondence of March 30, 2026, the URSM Board stated that its concerns are supported by what it described as “signed agreements, internal correspondence, tender documentation, payment records, and formal legal advice.” According to the Board, those documents demonstrate that Minister Brug, together with his Chief of Staff, engaged in conduct that the Board says constitutes a violation of Article 54 of the LMA. The URSM letter to Brug was signed by party President Brenda Brooks.

The Board emphasized that Minister Brug was not only aware of the applicable statutory framework, but was also warned verbally and in writing, including during a March 19, 2025 meeting and in written correspondence dated April 16, 2025. The Board rejected the characterization of the matter as an “oversight,” stating that the alleged conduct continued after the Minister had been cautioned.

Central to the Board’s position is what it described as an “indisputable sequence” of events. The letter states that CZAR Management & Consulting B.V. was incorporated on November 14, 2024, and that Minister Brug took the oath of office on November 26, 2024. Three days later, on November 29, 2024, according to the Board, the Minister’s Chief of Staff initiated an invitation to bid that included the company of her spouse, CZAR Management & Consulting B.V. The Board further stated that, based on email communication dated November 29, 2024, the spouse was given until December 4, 2024 to submit a bid.

The Board also stated that on January 2, 2025, Legal Affairs was approached to render advice on three contracts, consisting of two contracts for legal services for the Minister’s cabinet and one for CZAR Management & Consulting B.V. According to the Board, Minister Brug informed Legal Affairs on January 11, 2025, through the competent department head, that he would not await formal advice and would proceed with executing the contracts because his own legal counsel had already reviewed them. The Board said Legal Affairs warned that proceeding without the relevant advice would be at the Minister’s own risk.

The letter further states that on January 24, 2025, advice was issued, signed by the Chief of Staff, to proceed with awarding a contract in the amount of XCG 48,510 to the company of her spouse. The Board stated that the contract was formally executed on February 4, 2025 by Minister Brug and the spouse of his Chief of Staff. It added that, despite the defined scope and amount of the contract, payments exceeding XCG 83,000 were made between January and September 2025 to the company in question, in addition to prior payments made in December 2024.

The Board also linked the matter to the Terms of Reference for a Technical Expert for the Construction of the Mental Health Facility, which it said was published while the first contract was ongoing and remained open until March 6, 2025. According to the Board, reports and concerns were raised regarding a potential conflict of interest and an allegedly tailor-made tender. The letter states that these concerns were communicated by ministry staff members, two members of the Council of Ministers, and through various publications and social media platforms. A meeting with Minister Brug was then convened on March 19, 2025, attended by the Prime Minister in his capacity as Honorary Leader of the party.

Following that meeting, the Board stated that written correspondence was sent to Minister Brug on April 16, 2025, to which he responded by letter dated May 7, 2025. A further meeting was held on May 8, 2025, which the Board said was recorded with Minister Brug’s consent for minute-taking purposes.

The Board also cited negative advice issued by Legal Affairs on July 17, 2025 against awarding the tender to the same company. According to the Board, Legal Affairs cited a conflict of interest and noted that the tender was handled through the cabinet with the involvement of the Chief of Staff and without an external committee. The Board further stated that on August 20, 2025, Legal Affairs cautioned specifically about Article 54 of the LMA, which the Board said prohibits a civil servant from conducting business with Government directly or indirectly through the company of his or her spouse.

According to the URSM Board, the Minister nevertheless persisted in advancing and maintaining a contractual relationship, while payments continued beyond the initial six-week period and exceeded the initial contract amount. The Board stated that the tender process raises serious concerns regarding impartiality, transparency, and procedural integrity, particularly because of the documented involvement of the Chief of Staff in matters connected to her spouse’s company.

The Board also rejected what it called a misrepresentation of its discussions with Minister Brug. It stated that at no point during the March 19, 2025 meeting did the Board identify Ms. Arnell as the author of the tender. Instead, the Board stated that Minister Brug himself introduced her name and said she “liked working with the gentleman.” The Board said that statement reinforced its concern that personal preference, rather than objective procurement principles, guided the process.

The letter outlined the public procurement principles the Board said were discussed with the Minister, including non-discrimination, equality, transparency, and proportionality. According to the Board, the documented sequence suggests that a contract was first granted, followed by the structuring of a tender, which was later awarded to the same party. The Board described this as conduct falling within what is recognized as an integrity violation in public procurement.

The letter then addressed several allegations Minister Brug reportedly raised against the Prime Minister and against Brooks personally. The Board denied that Minister Brug had first approached the Board regarding issues with the Prime Minister, stating instead that the Board approached him following complaints received from whistleblowers, ministry staff, the SZV Board, and other stakeholders. The Board said the Prime Minister refuted the allegations in Minister Brug’s presence during prior meetings.

On the issue of legislative work and medical professional licensing, the Board said the Prime Minister had supported efforts connected to draft legislative frameworks, including a proposed Health Care Professionals Registry, and argued that the drafting of legislation does not inherently require a formal tendering process. The letter also stated that St. Maarten is facing a shortage of family physicians and that the Prime Minister had recommended that experienced medical professionals already serving the community be granted appropriate licenses.

Brooks also addressed remarks aimed at her law office and professional role. She stated that attorneys affiliated with Brooks & Associates are qualified professionals, that they are entitled to serve on boards of government-owned companies where no conflict exists, and that their appointments are lawful and transparent. She further stated that her legal work and public commentary on legal rights would continue where no conflict of interest exists, regardless of which Minister or administration is involved.

The Board also addressed the Hensley Plantijn matter, stating that the dismissal predated the current administration and that Government had successfully defended the matter at first instance before an appeal was filed. According to the Board, the handling of the appeal was assigned to another Minister through the Council of Ministers because Mr. Plantijn had assumed a role in the Prime Minister’s Cabinet. The Board rejected any suggestion that the Prime Minister failed to contest the appeal or allowed the matter to proceed in a manner favorable to Mr. Plantijn.

The letter also focused heavily on SZV-related matters. The Board stated that Minister Brug’s narrative regarding a tender ultimately conducted through SZV omitted important context, including two negative advices from Legal Affairs and concerns from the Supervisory Board that there was no legitimate basis for SZV to oversee a project falling within the scope of NRPB. The Board said the tender was published on October 22, 2025, initially for one week and then extended for an additional week, approximately two months after it had become clear that the tender involving CZAR through VSA could not be placed on the agenda of the Council of Ministers because of adverse legal advice.

The Board also stated that Minister Brug sought to involve himself in the approval of vacancy requirements for the SZV Director’s position, despite being informed that this did not fall within his authority. The letter further cited Article 6, paragraph 3 of the SZV Ordinance, which it said provides that the director and deputy director are appointed, suspended, and dismissed by national decree upon nomination of the Supervisory Board.

According to the Board, Minister Brug’s confirmation that he “instructed” SZV to undertake due diligence was significant because SZV is an autonomous and self-governing body. The Board said the use of the term “instructed” raised concerns about a possible misunderstanding or disregard of SZV’s statutory independence.

In the later portion of the letter, the Board stated that the relationship between Minister Brug and the party had irreparably broken down. It rejected the idea that reconciliation remained possible, particularly in light of what it described as the Minister’s criticism of the party, its leadership, and its integrity, while still refusing to resign.

President Brenda Brooks wrote: “The relationship between yourself and the Party has been irreparably damaged and is tarnished beyond repair. The Party no longer has, nor can it reasonably restore, the requisite trust and confidence in you in your capacity as Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor. Accordingly, it is the firm position of the Board that you can no longer continue to hold this office.”

The Board stated that Minister Brug’s actions reveal what it described as a disregard for the legal and institutional framework within which he is required to operate. It said the Ministry of VSA “is not, and must never become, a vehicle for personal or affiliated interests.”

The Board also rejected any suggestion that it remained passive or allowed the Minister to violate the law. It stated that since January 2025, the Board and party leadership remained in constant communication with Minister Brug and held multiple meetings in an effort to prevent public exposure and legal consequences. The Board further stated that its communications, warnings, meeting records, and discussions were not leaked or transmitted to Parliament, unlike what it said had now occurred with recent exchanges.

Brooks stated that the issue could not reasonably be reduced to an administrative oversight. The letter stated that an oversight does not include a prolonged trajectory involving repeated warnings, continued discussions, execution of a contract, and subsequent payment advices to the Ministry of Finance.

The Board concluded that Minister Brug consciously disregarded warnings, including the Board’s April 16, 2025 written communication and the statutory provisions related to Article 54 of the LMA. It stated that the matter has moved beyond perception, misunderstanding, or political disagreement and is grounded in what the Board views as documented conduct, legal violations, and an unequivocal loss of trust and confidence.

“The Board stands firmly by its decision,” Brooks wrote.

‍