PHILIPSBURG: --- The relationship between parliamentary oversight and independent auditing bodies is a cornerstone of good governance. Recently, a significant exchange of correspondence between Member of Parliament (MP) Ardwell M.R. Irion and the General Audit Chamber of Sint Maarten has brought this dynamic into sharp focus.
At the center of the discussion is the public support allocated for the Soul Beach event. Following the adoption of Motion No. 15 by Parliament, which requested an independent review of the event's financial and administrative processes, a debate has emerged regarding the scope, feasibility, and legal authority of such an audit.
MP Irion’s letter, dated October 27, 2025, serves as a comprehensive rebuttal to the Audit Chamber’s initial hesitation to conduct the review. The correspondence highlights critical questions about how public funds are tracked when they interact with private entities.
Clarifying the Scope of the Audit
A primary point of contention appears to be the nature of the entity receiving the funds. In previous communication, the Audit Chamber expressed concerns that the funds in question might be mixed with private financing, potentially complicating the audit process.
In his response, MP Irion clarified that Parliament’s request was never intended to scrutinize private foundations or private funding sources. Instead, the motion explicitly targets the use of public funds and the government processes that facilitated them.
Irion argues that private funding does not eliminate the need for accountability for the public portion. He described the suggestion that mixed funds cannot be audited as "speculative," emphasizing that the focus remains strictly on whether public resources were allocated and spent legally.
The Principle of Traceability
The MP’s letter raises a fundamental standard for public finance: traceability. Irion posits that if a foundation receives both public and private contributions, the public portion must remain distinct and auditable. He drew parallels to previous reviews, such as those involving the Port of Sint Maarten, where the Chamber successfully verified government revenues despite complex concession agreements.
The core argument is that government subsidies—whether for security, accommodations, or direct financial disbursements—must be traceable. The mixing of funds within a private entity should not create a "black box" that eludes public scrutiny.
Asserting Parliamentary Authority
Beyond the specific logistics of the Soul Beach audit, the correspondence touches on the broader legal framework of Sint Maarten’s governance. MP Irion cited Article 31 of the National Ordinance, which empowers Parliament to request specific investigations.
He reminded the Chamber that its oversight role extends to the legitimacy and effectiveness of all public revenue and expenditures. According to Irion, the legal framework affirms Parliament's right to inquire into public spending, even when those funds pass through intermediaries or non-governmental channels. He framed Motion No. 15 not just as a request, but as a democratic mandate representing the will of the people.
Moving from Refusal to Cooperation
Rather than accepting a conclusion that the audit is not feasible, MP Irion invited the Chamber to take a more constructive approach. He suggested that if specific documentation is missing or if records are not separated clearly, the Chamber should identify those gaps. Parliament, he assured, is prepared to pursue the necessary documents through the relevant ministries.
The correspondence ultimately seeks to establish a clear precedent: that no part of public administration is beyond scrutiny. By pressing for this audit, MP Irion is advocating for a system where the flow of tax money is transparent, regardless of where it ends up. The outcome of this exchange will likely influence how public-private partnerships and subsidies are monitored in Sint Maarten for years to come.