Who is watching the rules on gifts to public officials?

Dear Editor,

As a concerned citizen, I believe government owes the public an explanation about a situation that raises serious questions about integrity, judgment and the rules governing gifts to public officials.

I understand that a senior civil servant, in the department of labor no less, has been approaching businesses and collecting or seeking gifts for a police officer who recently came under public scrutiny over his actions involving a minor. The Labor Department head apparently believes that the officer acted correctly, while others in the community strongly disagree.

Whether the officer was right or wrong in that incident is not the issue I wish to address here. That matter should be assessed on its own facts and through whatever procedures are available. My concern is something different: How can a senior government official, particularly a department head who should be familiar with the rules governing civil servants, organize or participate in a campaign soliciting gifts from businesses for another public official?

The Landsverordening materieel ambtenarenrecht, commonly referred to as the LMA, contains specific provisions concerning gifts.

Article 58 states that a civil servant who is offered a payment, reward, gift or promise because of his or her position may only accept it after receiving permission from the head of service. More importantly for this situation, Article 58(7) states that a civil servant shall not request or demand that a payment, reward or gift be offered, or that a promise be made.

That raises an obvious question.

If a senior civil servant is personally approaching private businesses and asking them to contribute gifts for a government employee, how does that activity fit with Article 58(7)?

Perhaps government has an explanation. If so, the public should hear it.

The government's own Code of Conduct for government workers adds further context. It emphasizes that gifts can affect, or appear to affect, the independence of a public servant. It says permission should be obtained before accepting relevant gifts, that cash should not be accepted, that gifts exceeding NAf. 100 should not be accepted, and that private discounts, services and other benefits should also not be accepted. It specifically tells government workers to consider how acceptance of a gift will look to the outside world.

That principle of appearance matters here.

A labor department official has authority and status within government. Businesses interact with government departments for many reasons. Employees, employers and businesses may need decisions, information, inspections, mediation or other services from government.

So when a person holding such a position contacts businesses seeking gifts, what exactly are those businesses supposed to understand?

Are they being approached by a private citizen who happens to be a department head, or by someone whose government position inevitably follows her into that conversation?

Can a business owner reasonably feel completely free to say no when the person making the request occupies a senior position in a government department?

Was an official government telephone, email account, office, contact list, working time or other government resource used in this effort? If so, another provision may also deserve examination. Article 57 of the LMA prohibits the use of government property for the private interests of the civil servant or third parties.

These are questions that deserve answers, not assumptions.

The situation becomes even more difficult when we look at the rules governing the intended recipient, because police officers operate under a separate and stricter legal framework.

The Rechtspositiebesluit politie St. Maarten, which governs police personnel, contains a specific rule on gifts. Article 99 states that a police official is prohibited from accepting money, gifts, services or discounts, directly or indirectly and in whatever form, from anyone, when they are connected with the exercise of the officer's duties. The provision does not contain the LMA's NAf. 100 threshold.

That wording should cause everyone involved in this gift campaign to stop and ask some basic questions.

Why are the gifts being collected?

If they are being collected specifically because supporters believe the officer acted properly while carrying out his duties as a police officer, then how can those gifts be separated from the exercise of his office?

The entire reason for the collection, as I understand it, is connected to something the officer allegedly did while performing his police function.

If that is correct, would accepting the gifts fall within the prohibition contained in Article 99?

Has the officer sought advice from the Chief of Police, the Minister of Justice or the appropriate legal or integrity officials before accepting anything?

Has the senior government official sought advice from her own ministry concerning whether a senior civil servant should be soliciting businesses for gifts in these circumstances?

Has a list been maintained showing which businesses were approached, what was requested and what was contributed?

Will these gifts be handed directly to the officer?

Has the officer already accepted any of them?

If so, what is their value and who determined that they could lawfully be accepted?

These questions become even more important because the police employment rules deliberately place special obligations on police officials. The police oath requires an officer to comply with the law and regulations, to behave as a proper public official, and to be careful, incorruptible and reliable. It also expressly addresses the acceptance of promises or gifts in connection with doing or refraining from doing something in office.

The separate police employment decree exists precisely because police officers occupy a special position in society. The decree itself explains that police duties carry particular risks and therefore justify a separate employment framework.

That is why this should not be dismissed as simply people wanting to show appreciation to an officer.

Government integrity rules exist because relationships between public officials and private citizens or businesses can become complicated very quickly. A gift that feels harmless to the giver may create questions about influence, obligation, favoritism or access. When the person organizing those gifts is herself a senior government official, those questions become even more relevant.

The public also deserves to know where the line is drawn between personal advocacy and official responsibility.

A civil servant is entitled to personal opinions. A department head can believe that a police officer was treated unfairly. She can support a friend or acquaintance personally. But does holding a senior government position impose additional responsibilities when that support turns into actively soliciting private businesses for material benefits?

At what point does a personal campaign become an integrity issue?

At what point does asking businesses for gifts conflict with the standards that civil servants themselves are expected to uphold?

Most importantly, why was no one apparently asking these questions before the collection began?

This issue should not become another argument over whether people support or oppose the police officer involved. That is a distraction from the central issue.

The question is whether the rules governing public servants are being followed.

The LMA establishes rules for civil servants. The government's Code of Conduct provides further guidance. Police personnel are subject to their own rules, including a specific prohibition regarding gifts connected to the exercise of their office. Those provisions exist for a reason.

Government should therefore clarify whether the Head of the Labor Department received authorization or legal advice before soliciting businesses, whether government resources or her official position were used, whether the police officer has accepted or intends to accept the collected gifts, and whether the Ministry of Justice has determined that acceptance would comply with Article 99.

Until those questions are answered, citizens are entitled to ask a simple question:

If the people entrusted with applying and respecting government's integrity rules do not stop to consider those rules themselves, who exactly is responsible for protecting the integrity of the public service?

A Concerned Citizen

(𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐋𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫 - 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦’𝘴 𝘛𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴. 𝘚𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳. 𝘐𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳’𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘞𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘵 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦.)