MR. REPRESENTATIVE, STEP MUST BE FOR EVERYBODY — NOT JUST THE SAME FAMILIAR FACES!
Choiseul on the Move asks: If we can introduce a fair application system for school assistance, why can't we do the same for STEP?
By Choiseul on the Move | Community • Accountability • Fairness
There is something I have been observing in our constituency for many years, and I believe the time has come for us to stop merely talking about it and start demanding a better way of doing things.
I am referring to the manner in which supervisors and workers are selected for the Short Term Employment Programme, commonly known as STEP.
On August 15, 2026, this blog published an article entitled “STEP in Choiseul-Saltibus: Dignity in Work — But Where Is the Path to Real Employment?”
In that article, under the heading “Who Gets Selected?”, we raised some serious questions about the selection process.
We questioned the perception that the same supervisors are appointed from one programme to another and that some of these supervisors appear to have their own preferred groups of workers who repeatedly benefit.
Today, I am returning to that issue because I believe there is a practical solution.
And, interestingly enough, our Parliamentary Representative, Hon. Keithson “Kiffo” Charles, has already demonstrated through another constituency initiative how a more organised application process can work.
But first, let me make something absolutely clear.
This is not an attack on STEP workers, supervisors or the Parliamentary Representative. It is a challenge to improve a system that should serve everybody fairly.
THE SAME SUPERVISORS, THE SAME WORKERS — HOW LONG MUST THIS CONTINUE?
Let us talk plainly.
STEP is supposed to provide temporary employment and some financial relief to people who need it.
It is not supposed to become a permanent arrangement through which a small circle of individuals enjoys repeated access while others struggle to get their first opportunity.
Yet the perception persists that certain supervisors return for programme after programme, sometimes accompanied by workers who have already benefited from previous cycles.
Now, I am not suggesting that every returning supervisor is undeserving or that every returning worker was improperly selected.
Some supervisors may be excellent at their jobs. Some workers may have demonstrated outstanding reliability and commitment.
But that is not the point.
The question is whether everybody else is being given a fair opportunity to be considered.
And who decides?
Is it the supervisor?
Is it the constituency office?
Is it the Parliamentary Representative?
Or is there an established selection procedure administered by the Saint Lucia Social Development Fund?
These are not unreasonable questions.
They are questions that people should be entitled to ask when public resources are involved.
WE HAVE BEEN ASKING THESE QUESTIONS FOR YEARS!
Some readers may be surprised to learn that Choiseul on the Move was raising concerns about STEP selection in Roblot as far back as March 2012.
Again, in December 2013, we wrote about the need to rotate supervisors and provide fair opportunities to residents who were being overlooked.
That was under a different Parliamentary Representative.
Today, the personalities have changed, but the question remains.
Have we changed the system, or have we merely changed the people who benefit from it?
I have maintained for years that what is wrong under one political administration cannot suddenly become right under another.
If favouritism was wrong yesterday, it remains wrong today.
If exclusion was unacceptable under a previous representative, it must be equally unacceptable under the present one.
That is what consistency in public accountability means.
MR. CHARLES, YOU SAID YOU ARE THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR EVERYBODY
Hon. Keithson Charles has expressed the principle that he represents all the people of Choiseul-Saltibus.
I welcome that position.
Indeed, that is exactly how parliamentary representation should operate.
Once the election is over, the elected representative assumes responsibility for the entire constituency, not simply those who voted for him.
The person who voted Labour has a right to representation.
The person who voted UWP has that same right.
And the person who voted for neither party must not be treated as a second-class constituent.
Poverty does not carry a party card.
Unemployment does not ask how somebody voted.
An empty kitchen cupboard does not know the difference between red and yellow.
So why should access to a few days of government employment ever be influenced by political allegiance?
I am not saying that this is necessarily happening in every STEP programme. I am saying that the selection system must be transparent enough to demonstrate that it is not happening.
Mr. Charles, if you are indeed the representative for everyone, then this is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate what that promise means in practice.
Not through another speech.
Not through another photograph.
But through a selection process that every constituent can understand and trust.
YOU HAVE ALREADY SHOWN US A BETTER WAY WITH SCHOOL ASSISTANCE
During the 2026 back-to-school period, the Parliamentary Representative introduced a Constituency Educational Assistance Programme through which residents could apply for assistance.
Successful applicants were subsequently invited to receive their support.
This blog commended the initiative.
And I believe there is a valuable lesson to be learned from that approach.
Instead of relying entirely on informal recommendations or personal connections, an application system creates an opportunity for residents to put forward their circumstances for consideration.
Of course, an application alone does not guarantee fairness. The criteria, assessment and final decisions must also be fair.
Nevertheless, the approach offers a foundation worth building upon.
Why can't we establish a similar system for STEP?
Why should a struggling mother have to approach a supervisor to find out whether she might get a few days of work?
Why should an unemployed young man have to depend on somebody remembering his name?
Why should a resident who has never worked on STEP be left wondering whether there is even a way to apply?
Let people apply.
Let their circumstances be assessed.
Let their previous participation be taken into account.
Let qualified people compete fairly for supervisory positions.
And let the selection decisions be documented.
It is not rocket science.
It is simply good administration.
HERE IS THE SYSTEM I WOULD LIKE TO SEE INTRODUCED
I am proposing that the Parliamentary Representative work with the SSDF and other responsible authorities to establish a structured, transparent STEP selection process for Choiseul-Saltibus.
1. OPEN REGISTRATION BEFORE EVERY STEP CYCLE
Announce when applications are being accepted.
Give residents reasonable time to register.
Make application forms available at the constituency office and designated community locations, with an online option for those who can use it.
Nobody should have to hear about STEP only after the workers have already been selected.
2. CREATE A CONSTITUENCY-WIDE REGISTER OF APPLICANTS
Record each applicant's community, employment status, relevant experience, household circumstances and previous participation in STEP.
This would help identify residents who have never benefited and households facing genuine financial hardship.
Personal information must remain confidential.
3. GIVE PRIORITY TO NEED — NOT POLITICAL CONNECTIONS
STEP is a social-support initiative, not simply an ordinary employment competition.
Consequently, financial need, unemployment, household responsibilities and previous access to assistance should be important considerations.
Where applicants have comparable needs, preference could be given to those who have not previously benefited, while retaining room for returning participants where justified.
Political affiliation must never be a selection criterion.
4. INTRODUCE A FAIR SUPERVISOR SELECTION PROCESS
Supervisors have responsibilities.
They must organise workers, ensure proper attendance, monitor performance, enforce safety procedures and account for work completed.
Those positions should therefore be filled through a documented assessment of competence, experience, reliability and supervisory ability.
There should be opportunities for qualified new applicants to be considered.
No supervisor should regard the position as a personal entitlement.
5. REMOVE UNCHECKED CONTROL OVER WORKER RECRUITMENT
This is especially important.
If supervisors have substantial influence over who joins their teams, that influence must be subject to independent review.
A supervisor should not be allowed to treat publicly funded employment as a personal recruiting exercise.
Workers should be selected through the approved programme process and assigned to teams according to operational needs.
Where a supervisor recommends particular workers, the reasons should be documented and potential conflicts of interest declared.
6. INTRODUCE FAIR ROTATION
Where demand exceeds the number of available jobs, the system should provide an opportunity for eligible first-time applicants rather than repeatedly relying on the same individuals.
Rotation should not be automatic in every case, because some workers may have exceptional needs or particular skills.
But repeated selection should be explainable.
7. PUBLISH THE RESULTS — WITHOUT EXPOSING PRIVATE DETAILS
After each STEP cycle, the constituency should be told:
How many residents applied.
How many were selected.
How many were first-time participants.
How many had worked in previous cycles.
How many supervisors were appointed and how they were assessed.
How opportunities were distributed across the constituency's communities.
This information could be published without revealing applicants' financial or personal circumstances.
8. ESTABLISH AN APPEALS OR COMPLAINTS PROCESS
Residents who believe they were unfairly excluded should have somewhere to raise their concerns without fear of victimisation.
That process should be independent enough to command public confidence.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE OFTEN OVERLOOKED?
Choiseul-Saltibus is not one village.
It is a constituency made up of several communities, each with its own residents, challenges and employment needs.
Whether someone lives in Roblot, La Fargue, Mongouge, Dacretin, Saltibus, Delcer, Piaye, Caffiere or elsewhere, that person deserves fair consideration.
This does not mean that every community must receive an identical number of jobs.
Some communities may have greater needs, larger populations or more work to be undertaken.
But it does mean that opportunities should be distributed according to reasonable, publicly understood principles.
We must also ask whether work being done in a particular community creates opportunities for eligible residents of that community.
Surely local participation should be considered where practical.
MR. REPRESENTATIVE, HERE ARE THE QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANSWER
I believe these questions deserve straightforward answers from the constituency office and the authorities administering STEP.
QUESTION ONE: Who presently has the final authority to approve STEP supervisors and workers in Choiseul-Saltibus?
QUESTION TWO: Are supervisors permitted to choose or recommend their own workers? If so, what safeguards prevent favouritism?
QUESTION THREE: What are the actual criteria used to select supervisors, and are those criteria available to the public?
QUESTION FOUR: How many supervisors appointed during the most recent STEP cycle had supervised previous cycles?
QUESTION FIVE: How many workers were first-time participants, and how many were returning participants?
QUESTION SIX: Is there an official register of unemployed constituency residents seeking STEP employment, or does recruitment still depend heavily on informal recommendations?
QUESTION SEVEN: What measures ensure that residents are neither favoured nor excluded because of their political affiliation?
QUESTION EIGHT: Would you support an open application and documented assessment process, similar in principle to the constituency's educational assistance initiative?
QUESTION NINE: What steps can be taken to ensure that qualified new supervisors and workers receive a genuine opportunity in future cycles?
QUESTION TEN: Will the constituency office commit to publishing basic, non-personal STEP selection statistics after each cycle?
These questions are not intended to embarrass anyone.
They are intended to establish accountability.
And if fair procedures already exist, then the responsible authorities should explain them to the people.
LET US NOT CONFUSE FAIRNESS WITH PUNISHING RETURNING WORKERS
There is something else I want to make clear.
I am not advocating that somebody who worked on STEP last year should automatically be barred from working this year.
That would be unfair too.
What I am saying is that nobody should have an automatic advantage simply because they know a supervisor, have worked with a particular team before or are associated with the political party in office.
A fair system recognises both experience and need.
A responsible supervisor who performs well deserves consideration.
A worker who consistently delivers good work should not be punished for being reliable.
But neither should those qualities become an excuse for excluding everybody else.
There must be a balance.
And that balance is best achieved through a transparent selection process rather than individual discretion.
THE REAL TEST OF REPRESENTATION IS HOW YOU TREAT THOSE WHO DID NOT VOTE FOR YOU
Mr. Charles, I want to return to your declaration that you represent everybody.
That statement carries a responsibility.
It is easy to represent the people who supported you.
They attend your meetings. They promote your initiatives. They defend you when criticism comes.
But the real test of inclusive leadership is how you treat the resident who supported your opponent.
Can that person approach your office confidently?
Can that person's child benefit from an educational assistance programme?
Can that resident apply for STEP without wondering whether political allegiance will influence the decision?
Can a qualified person who belongs to the other side of the political divide be considered for a supervisory position?
That is where the promise of representation for everyone must become reality.
You do not have to reward an opponent for opposing you.
You simply have to ensure that being an opponent does not disqualify that person from receiving fair consideration for publicly funded assistance.
And that principle must apply equally to every political administration.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR KIFFO TO SET A NEW STANDARD
I believe our Parliamentary Representative has an opportunity to introduce a meaningful reform.
The educational assistance application process provides a starting point.
Why not take that concept further?
Why not establish a STEP system in Choiseul-Saltibus that other constituencies could eventually emulate?
A system in which applications are invited openly.
A system in which need and suitability matter.
A system in which supervisors are accountable.
A system in which first-time applicants receive genuine consideration.
A system in which no resident feels compelled to seek political favour simply to earn a few days' wages.
And, most importantly, a system in which the Parliamentary Representative can confidently tell the entire constituency:
Everybody has an opportunity to apply. Everybody is assessed fairly. Nobody is excluded because of how they voted.
Now that would be progress worth applauding.
MY FINAL WORD
I have watched STEP come and go through different governments and different parliamentary representatives.
I have seen the value of the programme to families who desperately need temporary financial assistance.
I have also seen how questions about selection and favouritism can undermine public confidence.
After all these years, surely we can do better.
Mr. Charles, this is not a demand for special treatment for one political side over the other.
It is a demand that there be no political sides at all when public assistance is being fairly administered.
The public purse belongs to the people of Saint Lucia.
Not to the SLP.
Not to the UWP.
Not to any supervisor.
Not to any parliamentary representative.
To the people.
And when public money creates opportunities, every eligible citizen deserves a fair chance to benefit.
So, Mr. Representative, I leave you with one final question:
If a structured application system is good enough for distributing school assistance to our children, why should a similarly fair and transparent system not be good enough for selecting the men and women who work on STEP?
I believe the people of Choiseul-Saltibus deserve an answer.
And, more importantly, they deserve a system that works.
Because representation for everyone must mean opportunity for everyone.
Choiseul on the Move
Community • Accountability • Development
Previous article: STEP in Choiseul-Saltibus: Dignity in Work — But Where Is the Path to Real Employment?
