IRRESPONSABLE, YOU SAID? --- Alain Richardson.

View Comments
The representative of the State in the island territories of St. Barths and St Martin (M. Jacques SIMONNET) has deemed the unanimous decision taken by the elected members of the island territory with regards to their refusal to follow the recommendation of the Territorial Chamber of Accounts to be « irresponsible ». The recommendation made by the Chamber of Accounts suggested to double the rate of the General Tax on Sales revenue. As leader of the RASSEMBLEMENT-RESPONSABILITE-REUSSITE group which has requested that the Préfet would refer to the Chamber on matters regarding the insincerity and the imbalance of the 2011 budget, and as instigator and co-writer of the Motion that was voted on unanimously, I feel obligated to react to the irresponsible, out of place and anti republican comments made by the representative of the State. My reaction has been somewhat tempered by apologies made.
Allow me to cite the words of apology published in the press « The word « irresponsibility » that has been used to express my feeling is rather strong and I sincerely regret it – it is only the translation of a general remark but the fact that it may have shocked or offended a few elected officials, while there was no contempt for them in the remarks I made about them, I ask them to accept my sincerest apologies. »
This reply, however sincere it may be, does not seem appropriate or even heartfelt because, very unfortunately, the author still feels the officials have only reacted out of emotion and squeamishness ( his words: "shocked or offended") ; he doesn't seem to have rightly measured his disrespect nor the position of the one who has uttered such words (The representative of the State, an appointed civil servant) and the ones he has openly criticized or judged (elected members of the Territorial Council of an Autonomous District, elected persons resulting from the expression the people's choice and who decided unanimously and conscientiously).
This whole thing makes me uncomfortable, and I wish to remind the Préfet – Representative of the State, that no matter how much a representative of the State he is, neither the State that he is supposedly representing nor its services are above the constitution. The Constitution states a fundamental and founding rule which is the « Free Administration of Administrative Districts » by its elected members. In other words, the elected officials are sovereign in their administration decisions (as long as they respect the law). To refuse to implement a recommendation from the Chambers of Accounts is not an infringement of law. I wanted to remind him of this first point, but seeing he made apologies, I can't go any further.
I would have liked to remind the Préfet – Representative of the State, that his mission is to verify the legality and not to control the opportunity or even the decisions taken, but seeing that he made an apology, perhaps, I no longer should.
I would have liked to remind the Préfet – Representative of the State that the statutory procedure in requesting a recommendation from the Chamber of Accounts is (briefly) as follows:
  • After referral, the Chamber has one month to issue its report,
  • After the publishing of its report, the President must present this report on the first occasion of a Council meeting and notify the Council of the recommendations made by the Chamber.
  • The decision of the Council is then forwarded to the Chamber which has 15 days to appreciate whether the decisions taken can indeed regulate the deficit. It communicates its conclusions to the Préfet who, in the event the decisions taken are not in favour of resolving the problems, will then decide whether he should regulate the budget.
The fact is the Council has taken its decision by a motion on Thursday July 7th, 2011; the deliberations could not have been sent to the office in charge of the verification of the legality before Monday July 11th, 2011. Yet, from Saturday July 9th, 2011 during the inauguration in French Quarter of the housing from SEMSAMAR, the Préfet – Representative of the State had already begun to make his disrespectful remarks about the elected officials and their decision. How should one understand and tolerate that the Préfet – Representative of the State, makes such unacceptable comments? How does one explain his criticism that is out of place whereas he had not yet received the document which, by law, had to first be sent to the Territorial Chamber of Accounts? There's no way he could have been in any position to express himself on this matter publicly. Again, I would have liked to ask the Préfet – Representative of the State to give an explanation for his actions, but seeing he's made a public apology, maybe I should abstain.
I would have liked to remind the Préfet – Representative of the State, of the fact that.....
I sure would have also liked to remind the Préfet – Representative of the State, that... but seeing he's made a public and profuse apology, after all, maybe I should abstain.

Alain RICHARDSON
President of the group RASSEMBLEMENT-RESPONSABILITE-REUSSITE