An anonymous letter circulating on St. Eustatius raises a familiar question: what does the island actually gain from its government’s overseas trips? BES-Reporter does not publish anonymous letters. But the concerns behind this one deserve an answer.
In my view, official travel from St. Eustatius has become excessive. The delegations repeatedly appear to revolve around the same small circle: Governor Francis and the officials accompanying her. Meanwhile, ordinary residents struggle to afford even a visit to neighbouring St. Maarten. The contrast between publicly funded travel and what islanders can afford themselves is difficult to ignore.
Each trip comes with an explanation. There is a conference, an invitation or an ‘important meeting’. But who asks whether everyone needs to go—or whether a smaller delegation could achieve the same objectives?
Councilman Clyde van Putten has questioned the simultaneous absence of the governor, both commissioners and the island secretary. That warrants an explanation of why all four need to travel and how continuity of government is safeguarded.
My impression of the Executive Council’s response to criticism, particularly that of Governor Francis, is one of dismissiveness. The attitude appears to be that decisions about travel are hers to make and criticism need not influence them. I consider that an arrogant approach to public accountability.
The problem extends beyond St. Eustatius. Bonaire displays much the same pattern and, to a lesser extent, so does Saba. In my capacity as a representative of ABC Online Media, I previously raised concerns about official travel on Bonaire with incoming Island Governor John Soliano and then acting governor Ingrid Sealy. I have seen little evidence of meaningful restraint.
The need for clear limits is becoming more urgent. The expansion of the Island Councils in March 2027 is now established in law: Bonaire’s council will grow from nine to eleven members, while those of St. Eustatius and Saba will each grow from five to seven. The Executive Councils will also expand.
If the current travel culture continues, that means the prospect of more tickets, hotel nights and daily allowances. An expansion intended to strengthen representation should not become an automatic expansion of travelling delegations.
There appears to be no clear, publicly visible standard keeping the frequency and scale of travel within reasonable limits. If such limits exist, publish them. How many days may an official spend travelling each year? What determines delegation size? Who challenges a request or refuses it?
Councillors should be asking these questions. Yet when their own travel is involved, restraint seems conspicuously absent. Too often, participation appears to be treated as an entitlement.
Why not send a rotating delegation of roughly one-third of a council to a VNG congress? Those attending could report back, share knowledge and propose follow-up action. A larger delegation should require a convincing justification.
Daily allowances deserve scrutiny too. They should cover necessary expenses, not create a financial incentive to travel more frequently. Citizens should know the rates, conditions and total amounts paid.
BZK and Dutch host organisations should examine their own role. Invitations should encourage useful cooperation, not make oversized delegations seem normal.
What remains entirely unclear is how all this travel improves life for the average island resident on Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba. How has it helped bring down living costs, reduce electricity bills or tackle poverty? Officials repeatedly describe their meetings as ‘productive’, but where is the public account of what those meetings actually delivered?
Publish who is travelling, why each person is needed and what the trip will cost. Afterwards, disclose actual expenditure, concrete results and who is responsible for following through. Attendance is not an achievement, and a meeting is not a result.
Residents do not need another photograph of their representatives around a conference table. They need evidence that the money spent sending them there is making life better back home.
