PHILIPSBURG:--- The resignation of NV GEBE Transition Manager Thomas Roggendorf has once again thrust the government-owned utility into the spotlight, raising serious questions about corporate governance, shareholder oversight, and the prolonged failure to appoint a permanent Managing Board despite repeated assurances that the process would be completed.
In an internal notice dated June 9, 2026, Roggendorf informed staff that he had submitted his resignation as Transition Manager and that his final day in office would be June 12, 2026. In the letter, he thanked employees for their professionalism and stated that he would remain engaged in ensuring an orderly transition before his departure.
Reliable sources have indicated that Roggendorf also formally informed the Supervisory Board of his decision. According to those sources, the Board's response consisted of a single word: "Acknowledged."
While the response may have confirmed receipt of the notification, it has done little to calm growing concerns over the state of leadership at NV GEBE, a utility that has spent much of the past two years operating under temporary and consultancy arrangements rather than a fully constituted and permanently appointed management team.
A Temporary Appointment That Lasted More Than a Year
Roggendorf assumed leadership of NV GEBE in April 2025 following the sudden death of Temporary Manager and CEO candidate Troy Washington. Washington's passing shocked the utility and the wider St. Maarten community, leaving the company without a permanent chief executive at a critical stage in its recovery efforts.
At the time, Roggendorf was already one of the candidates being considered for the CEO position and was subsequently appointed to lead the utility on an interim basis while the appointment process continued.
More than fourteen months later, he remained in office as Transition Manager.
That extended tenure has raised questions because NV GEBE's Articles of Incorporation clearly treat temporary management as an emergency measure rather than a long-term governance solution.
What the Articles of Incorporation Say
A review of NV GEBE's Articles of Incorporation shows that Article 8 provides for the appointment of a temporary manager when all managing directors are absent or otherwise unable to perform their duties.
The Articles state that the corporation may be temporarily managed by a person appointed by the Supervisory Board. However, that same provision requires that a shareholders' meeting be convened as soon as possible to provide for definitive management. Furthermore, the temporary manager's authority is limited to acts that cannot be delayed.
While the Articles reviewed do not explicitly state a three-month maximum term for a temporary manager, governance experts note that the language clearly indicates that temporary management was never intended to become a long-term substitute for a properly appointed Managing Board.
The fact that Roggendorf remained in the position for more than a year without a permanent appointment being finalized has therefore become a significant governance issue.
Shareholder Delays Under Increasing Scrutiny
The controversy surrounding NV GEBE's leadership did not begin with Roggendorf's resignation.
Since 2025, reports have consistently pointed to delays by the shareholder in finalizing executive appointments recommended through established recruitment processes.
One of the most notable examples involves Wilco Sienen, the utility executive selected for the position of Chief Financial Officer.
In April 2025, reports confirmed that Sienen had already begun working with NV GEBE as a consultant while awaiting formal appointment as CFO. The arrangement was presented as temporary while the shareholder completed the approval process.
Yet more than a year later, the CFO appointment remained unresolved.
The situation became so prolonged that Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina publicly acknowledged in January 2026 that NV GEBE was operating with a temporary manager and a financial consultant rather than a fully appointed Managing Board.
The Prime Minister further indicated that the CFO appointment would be addressed after the installation of a new Supervisory Board, effectively confirming that the shareholder had not yet completed the appointment process.
Supervisory Board Turmoil
The appointment delays unfolded against a backdrop of escalating conflict between Government and the Supervisory Board.
Throughout 2025 and into 2026, concerns were repeatedly raised about governance, oversight, transparency, and the handling of executive appointments at NV GEBE.
Those tensions eventually culminated in Government directing the Supervisory Board to resign amid what officials described as growing concerns over the utility's governance structure and leadership decisions.
The turmoil created additional uncertainty around the appointment of permanent executives and contributed to an atmosphere in which temporary arrangements continued far longer than originally envisioned.
Questions About the CEO Appointment Process
Adding to the controversy were reports that Roggendorf himself expected to become the permanent CEO.
According to reporting published by SMN News, Roggendorf was among the candidates nominated through the recruitment process and later assumed the role of temporary manager following Washington's death.
Sources familiar with the process have indicated that there was an expectation that the CEO appointment would eventually be finalized. However, despite the passage of more than a year, no permanent appointment was ever announced.
The absence of a final decision has fueled speculation regarding disagreements among stakeholders, shareholder intervention, and ongoing governance disputes behind the scenes.
Consultant Status Raises Additional Concerns
The continued use of consultancy arrangements has also become a point of concern.
Critics argue that allowing a selected CFO candidate to function as a consultant for more than a year without formal appointment undermines good corporate governance and creates uncertainty regarding authority, accountability, and decision-making responsibilities.
Questions are now being raised about whether the shareholder's failure to complete the appointment process contributed to instability within the utility's leadership structure.
Utility Still Waiting for Stability
Roggendorf's resignation now leaves NV GEBE facing another leadership transition at a time when customers continue to expect improvements in service reliability, infrastructure modernization, and financial recovery.
His departure also revives a broader question that has lingered for more than a year:
Why has one of the country's most important public utilities been allowed to operate for so long without a fully constituted and permanently appointed Managing Board?
The Articles of Incorporation envision temporary management as a short-term solution designed to bridge a gap until definitive leadership can be installed. Instead, temporary appointments, consultancy arrangements, shareholder delays, governance disputes, and board upheaval have combined to produce a leadership vacuum that has persisted far longer than many stakeholders believed acceptable.
With Roggendorf now leaving, the spotlight will once again fall on the shareholder, the Supervisory Board, and Government to explain why permanent appointments remain outstanding and what steps will be taken to ensure that NV GEBE finally obtains the stable and permanent leadership structure envisioned by its governing documents.
For employees, customers, and the people of St. Maarten, the issue is no longer merely who will lead NV GEBE next. The larger question is whether the long-running cycle of temporary solutions and delayed decisions will finally come to an end.