PHILIPSBURG:--- On May 21, 2025, the Board of Appeal in Civil Service Cases delivered a landmark decision regarding the dismissal of the Secretary-General (SG) Hensley Plantijn of the Ministry of General Affairs in Sint Maarten. The ruling overturned the 2022 governmental decision to discharge the SG, declaring the dismissal invalid and ordering compensation for legal costs. The case, marked by conflicting evaluations of performance, management disputes, and procedural concerns, has sparked significant administrative debate.
Timeline of Events
The dispute originates from the SG’s appointment to the position in June 2015, following advisory work beginning in 2011. Performance concerns reportedly emerged as early as August 2019, when a former Prime Minister of General Affairs, Silveria Jacobs, proposed reprimanding the SG for failing to follow instructions. However, this proposed disciplinary action was not executed due to a lack of evidence.
By mid-2021, under Prime Minister Silveria Jacobs, formal evaluations documented several performance issues. The SG was criticized for deficiencies in communication, organizational skills, budget handling, quality control, and adherence to instructions. These assessments culminated in a December 2022 national decree from the Governor, granting the SG an honorable discharge effective January 1, 2023, on the grounds of incompetence or unsuitability for the role.
The SG challenged this decision, arguing that he had not been provided sufficient opportunity to address alleged shortcomings, and that prior performance under multiple administrations had been unproblematic. The General Court, however, upheld the dismissal in December 2023, citing a consistent pattern of underperformance.
Arguments Presented
The SG appealed the General Court’s decision, asserting that the dismissal was unwarranted and procedurally flawed. He claimed that from 2014 to 2018, no issues were raised about his work. It was not until 2018, with the appointment of a new minister, and later under Prime Minister Jacobs in 2019, that tensions emerged. He contended that the Prime Minister's management style, described as micro-managing and indecisive, hindered effective collaboration.
The appellant also argued that the interim evaluation of July 2021 lacked specificity and actionable objectives, and that no follow-up meetings were held to address performance. He maintained that the final performance evaluation in January 2022 indicated potential for improvement with realistic planning, signaling that dismissal was premature.
On the other side, the Governor defended the dismissal by pointing to chronic performance issues documented over several years. These included delays in document delivery, poor communication, and unmet expectations during internal evaluations. The Governor maintained that such deficiencies justified the SG’s removal from his post.
The Council's Considerations
The Court of Appeal carefully examined both sides of the case. It acknowledged extensive documentation of past performance issues but concluded that the dismissal decision did not convincingly prove the SG’s unsuitability for his position. The ruling emphasized the following:
- Insufficient Opportunities for Improvement: The Board highlighted that while concerns were raised during evaluations, the SG was not given a realistic chance to address these issues. This lack of opportunity violated established case law, which requires improvement processes before dismissing an employee on the grounds of incompetence.
- Management Disputes: The Court found evidence of personality and management clashes between the SG and Prime Minister Jacobs, which contributed to a breakdown in their working relationship. However, it ruled that this was not sufficient to justify a dismissal based on incompetence.
- Procedural Gaps: The Court criticized the timeline of actions taken against the SG, noting that performance issues should have been addressed earlier. Additionally, follow-up evaluations and clear performance goals were absent.
- Legal Standards: According to settled precedent, removal from office requires concrete evidence of inability to meet role requirements. The Board determined that this threshold was not met, and the dismissal decision was disproportionate.
Final Decision
The Court of Appeal set aside the contested judgment of the lower court, declared the objection to the dismissal decision well-founded, and annulled the national decree of December 2022. Furthermore, it ordered the Governor to reimburse SG’s legal costs, amounting to Cg 3,500.
However, it underscores deeper systemic issues within Sint Maarten’s public administration.
Broader Implications
This case raises critical questions about performance management, procedural fairness, and conflict resolution within the civil service. The Board’s ruling emphasizes the need for clear and accountable processes in handling dismissals at senior governmental levels. It also highlights the impact of managerial dynamics on administrative operations.
While the ruling restores the professional reputation of the SG, it draws attention to broader structural challenges in Sint Maarten’s governance. Future reforms will likely need to address evaluation processes, leadership accountability, and mechanisms for dispute resolution to prevent similar cases.
The outcome of this case not only sides with due process but also serves as a reflection on the importance of fair and transparent governance in ensuring trust and effectiveness in public administration.
Click here for the verdict. https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:ORBAACM:2025:15
