Botched Boards Part 1: NIPA and the Consolidation of Power
Several changes to the Articles of Association (AoA) of the National Institute for Professional Advancement (NIPA) have placed serious concerns on the good governance and accountability standards of the Board of Directors. The board is chaired by Peggy-Ann Dros, who sat in the position since March 15, 2016 and is also the Division Head of Labor Affairs and Social Services in the Ministry of VSA. Dros is the representative of VSA on the board. The changes to the AoA now allows a board member to serve from three years to now serve for five years, along with the possibility to renew the seat twice. This contradicts the original AoA, in that, a member had one term of three years and if reappointed can serve for a maximum of one additional term of three more years.
The only changes the Dros led board ever made were to the terms and who can appoint, which shows a direct intention to influence the power structure of the NIPA. In essence, if a board member is appointed and is allowed to sit unchecked, they can be a member for 15 years. In addition to this, the monthly stipend of the board members has also increased based on reliable sources, although the school has to shoulder financial challenges due to Covid-19. As a result of years of politicking and consolidation of power, the work environment and overall school spirit has suffered, sources expressed.
AoA Track Changes
NIPA was incorporated on April 9, 2013 and the original board members consist of representatives from stakeholders in the educational, public and private sector. The original representative structure of the board was: 2 from Chamber of Commerce and Industry (COCI), 1 from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Youth & Sport, 1 from the Ministry of Social Affairs, Health and Labor, 1 from the Foundation for Academic & Vocational Education (FAVE), 1 from SVOBE (Milton Peters and Sundial board) and 1 from the Windward Islands Teachers Union (WITU). That is a total of seven persons with no independent seats. The independent seats are regarded as expert members.
The most significant change to the AoA took place in March 2021 when the representative seats of FAVE, SVOBE and WITU were removed to allow for three independent experts. The extended duration one can sit on the board was also changed in 2021. However, that change took place shortly before Dros' term on the board was nearing its end. Annuska Friday's term was also near its end. Friday served as secretary and began her function on March 15, 2016 as a representative of COCI. The changes were done albeit there was no reappointment for the second term. Hence they sat as temporary members until the relevant stakeholders would have them replaced. This begs to question, what stops the board members from removing all original entities in exchange for more independent members? And in the selection of these independent experts; who is deemed an expert and how? The AoA allows for a maximum of seven board members, and four seats are presently independent.
In late 2022, Friday, along with another COCI representative, Aesha James, resigned. Coincidentally, the AoA was changed in December 2022 which removed a representative seat from COCI, and became an independent seat Friday presently holds. This took place after the COCI board nominated Benjamin Ortega and Louis Bute. According to reliable sources, Dros renounced Bute’s nomination which was followed by the AoA change. Nonetheless, Ortega accepted the placement and is presently the sole COCI representative. Such lapses of good governance are the result of multiple governing administrations and Ministers who failed to hold their representatives accountable or demand progress/ follow up reports beyond the yearly reports. Subsequently a "free for all" festered that allowed representatives to function without sound supervision; weakening the checks and balances. This was successful by the legal powers granted to the Board of Directors.
As a consequence, the following scenarios took place: the Ministry of ECYS has had no representative on the board for over a year, although the Minister of Education, Drs. Rodolphe Samuel has served as Minister since 2020. NIPA also receives a subsidy from the Ministry of Education, yet it has no representation at the institute. As an institute primarily for vocational education, the removal of FAVE's and SVBOE’s representation on NIPA's board appears counterproductive and illogical. The two maintain the largest high school population on St. Maarten. Nonetheless, FAVE's former representative, Elroy Hughes, presently sits as an independent member. Hughes joined the board on August 18, 2017. Notably, he is still the chairman of the FAVE board. For an island solely dependent on tourism, NIPA is one of the key institutions to supply the island’s hospitality sector. Therefore, the independent expert positions should comprise of former or current hospitality industry leaders.
AoA Track Changes
The significant changes in the AoA are highlighted in article 6 sub sections 4a and 4f over the years. The ultimate responsibility for NIPA lies with the board, and the AoA contains several provisions that allow for such consolidation. For example within article 7 the board has the power to not only supervise the Management Board but the day-to-day affairs as well. This includes, “implementing a far reaching reorganization” and “radically changing the employment conditions or terms of employment of a substantial number of employees of the Foundation.” The stakeholders cannot dictate operations of the school, which is a safety net that checks possible political- or other- overstep. Therefore, the appointment of a representative is time sensitive, and the poor stakeholder engagement has allowed persons to sit on the board for prolonged periods. Given that NIPA receives a government subsidy, the government can provide conditions for the subsidy it provides, albeit it can’t influence operations of the board. Once persons take their seat, the board is de-facto the shareholder since it has the ultimate mandate to determine the course of the foundation according to the AoA.
Dros’ initial response to request for comment was “I hope that these sort of questions are also posed as a concern for the catholic school board who have now served over 40 years.” She followed by stating that the “true conflict is with the President of COCI and the Director who is her husband/man/boyfriend.” It must be noted that a Director of NIPA, Deshaun David and former president of COCI board, Jennifer Carty are in a publicly known relationship. And as the AoA establishes, all stakeholders like COCI have no direct autonomy for management decisions in the NIPA. Following a request for response in writing, Dros proposed meeting in person first, for an “exclusive” with the board. The response provided by my person was that an in person meeting can be held if needs be, after a written response is first provided. The following day, multiple media partners were contacted to attend a press conference hosted by Dros and the board, however, my person was not invited, until a request for clarity of such a decision was sent to Dros via email. As a result of the underhanded approach, a deadline was given for the written responses, of 10 pm on January 11. Dros replied with a number of bullet points highlighting our previous discussion and added, “you will still receive an invite.”
Dros has also emailed the Council of Ministers referencing this inquiry into NIPA's board and added that the inquiry "brings into question the appointment of Ms. Cindy Lee Doran to the NIPA board." Notably, Cindy Lee works within the National Alliance faction in Parliament along with Friday. Therefore, much elaboration is needed on the selection of independent experts. Dros continued, that the government receives yearly reports from NIPA and "the press conference will also include an introductory statement on the accomplishments achieved over the tenure of this board- in favor of the Government of Sint Maarten.” The email is a swipe that attempts to distract from the unethical changes made in the interest of self-preservation. The email also requested the Ministers to forward any questions the media poses "so that we can also provide you with a written response."
The current members of the board are: Peggy Ann Dros, Annuska Friday, Benjamin Ortega, Roxanne Howell, Cindy-Lee Doran and Elroy Hughes.
A revolving door
According to several sources, the institute has seen a whopping 20+ persons leave due to meddling of the board, toxicity, mental health concerns, and a myriad of other issues. This includes persons whose contracts were not renewed. The common fear among them was the position of Dros as the Division Head Labor Affairs and Social Services along with the fear of bullying and victimization which can be traced back to her initial tenure on the board. At least five human resources assistants left the position within a few years. Most notable is that NIPA had over 10 Managing Directors within the nine years of its existence. Under this board, NIPA witnessed nine directors. That makes it a whopping 30+ persons who worked at the school at various levels. Within the three years, there were multiple resignations under the present board.
Details of this will be highlighted in a subsequent article.
This story is the first of a series that will dive into the pitfalls and blind spots of good governance within supervisory boards on St. Maarten which has led to weakened institutions and abuse of power by members. A follow up will also be written after the press conference.
