Significant achievements by Restoration Centre

The contribution "Time to start doing something tangible", by Labour MP Joe Mizzi, piled up unfounded allegations while avoiding more than 40 very tangible and significant achievements by the Malta Centre for Restoration (MCR) listed in my contribution of August 2.

In continuing to attack MCR without rhyme or reason, Mr Mizzi is on a very sticky wicket and understandably chooses to ignore the overwhelming evidence which points to MCR being one of the best-managed and most successful agencies in Malta.

Mr Mizzi claims that "cost-effectiveness has to be seen within the perspective of the staff to student ratio (circa 22 full-time students) which is almost one-to-one".

In providing these figures, Mr Mizzi seems to have ignored the answers given to a number of parliamentary questions that have amply demonstrated that during 2002-2003 there were just under 40 full-time students in the B.Cons (Hons) course, over 30 full-time students in the vocational courses and some 100 students in the part-time and full-time preparatory courses (including 70 overseas students following distance-learning programmes). These figures are set to increase in 2003-2004 with new intakes and new courses being brought on line.

Secondly, Mr Mizzi further distorts the picture on cost-effectiveness by implying that local and foreign staff at MCR only carry out teaching duties. This is simply not the case. As pointed out in my contribution of August 2, MCR has seven divisions, of which the teaching arm, the Institute for Conservation and Restoration Studies, is just one.

Mr Mizzi ignores the fact that all members of the MCR's divisions such as diagnostic science, conservation intervention or documentation are not only expected to teach but also carry out a full range of duties such as diagnostic analysis, conservation and documentation of artefacts and buildings.

Mr Mizzi continues to allege that "most major restoration projects in this country seem to have eluded MCR", despite the fact that: a) it has been clearly explained that during its formative years priority was accorded to capacity building and b) MCR has actually been commissioned in over 300 projects (major and minor) in just four years of existence.

Indeed, there are no major restoration projects for which MCR tendered and was not commissioned in preference to other parties.

The fourth allegation by Mr Mizzi, and one of the most serious, is that "a recent important project for MCR, the mural painting at Verdala Palace, was carried out using outdated and damaging techniques because the advice of MCR's specialised staff was ignored by the management".

Mr Mizzi makes this very serious allegation without substantiating it by indicating which were the "outdated and damaging techniques" used at Verdala, who of MCR's specialised staff had his/her advice ignored by management, what was the alternative course of action that Mr Mizzi would have advocated and when this event was supposed to have happened.

The facts about the Verdala Palace project are that the project was carried out under the direction of Maurizio Tagliapietra, a senior conservator trained at the Istituto Centrale per il Restauro of Rome with over 25 years experience assisted by two conservators who had also received part of their training at ICR.

MCR's management did not interfere in any way in the judgment or applied methodology of the team which worked together with such success at Verdala. To try to besmirch the excellent work of MCR staff and students at Verdala, as Mr Mizzi attempts to do, is beyond further comment or contempt.

Another point made by Mr Mizzi concerns yet another unsubstantiated allegation which in itself is also a contradiction in terms.

"I believe that MCR has many formidable and talented technical and scientific staff but that overall results are unsatisfactory because of poor management and the political approach of senior management."

Mr Mizzi is of course entitled to his beliefs but when he goes public with such statements then the readers expect some kind of substantiation. He is right in stating that MCR's staff are highly qualified. This staff was chosen by the very same senior management that Mr Mizzi then singles out for negative criticism.

At least, therefore, in choosing the staff, MCR's senior management is not being accused of "poor management". Then on what grounds is the public expected to share Mr Mizzi's beliefs?

The "overall results are unsatisfactory" says Mr Mizzi, yet my contribution of August 2 lists over 40 significant achievements. Were these achieved by poor management? Can Mr Mizzi name a foreign conservation centre which has achieved as much as MCR in four short years since inception?

Then again, just what does Mr Mizzi mean by "the political approach of senior management"? MCR's management is free from political interference or political bias in its decisions. Mr Mizzi advances no proof to the contrary.

One point made by Mr Mizzi may possibly give a partial insight into at least one of the sources of his jaundiced point of view: "The MCR chairman may wish to explain the succession of resignations and departures of excellently qualified staff from MCR, many of whom were constrained to leave by the management".

This is yet another case of Mr Mizzi getting his facts wrong. There simply has not been any extraordinary "succession of departures of excellently qualified staff" at MCR.

The turnover of staff at MCR is neither unusual nor alarming. Like every other agency MCR employs staff on a contract of service or on loan from the public sector. Where staff performs well it has its contract of service renewed and is promoted if such promotion is warranted.

Where staff under-performs it has its contract of service terminated. This is the usual way of ensuring that public funds are properly utilised. In an organisation the size of MCR, there is always a small percentage of staff whose performance is found wanting.

Over the past 20 months, MCR has terminated the employment of three employees on grounds of inadequate/unsatisfactory performance and one employee has resigned in order to join her partner abroad.

All of the three employees whose contracts were terminated were in, or at the end of, their first year of employment at MCR and, thus, still mostly on their probationary period. This is scarcely an alarming exodus.

MCR has replaced these staff members with even more highly qualified staff who have commenced service or are about to do so in the next academic year.

Needless to say, whether expatriate or Maltese, the members of staff who had their contracts of service terminated do not necessarily see MCR's management (responsible for their termination) in a very good light. Now if Mr Mizzi prefers to listen to certain disgruntled views rather than be fair to MCR's management that is his business. He should not however expect the Maltese public to blindly follow his example.

Another point made by Mr Mizzi is that MCR's "lack of strategy and inability to work within the framework of other heritage and restoration institutions in Malta have undermined the potential of MCR to become a centre of excellence".

Contrary to what Mr Mizzi states, MCR has a clearly defined strategy as outlined in the strategy document which is periodically reviewed by its board of governors. MCR's long list of successes are all parts of consistent efforts to implement its corporate strategy.

MCR has also demonstrated a clear ability to work within the framework of other heritage and restoration institutions in Malta: it enjoys excellent relations with Heritage Malta and the Restoration Unit of the Ministry of Resources. It works well within the Committee of Guarantee and has excellent relations with dozens of satisfied clients in Malta's public and private sectors. That is why the restoration projects continue to flow in.

An eighth point by Mr Mizzi is happily something with which we can agree heartily: "No amount of publicity and media antics can be a substitute for good management". MCR's long list of achievements were achieved by a combination of good management and commitment on the part of all members of MCR's staff. We suggest that no amount of media antics on the part of Mr Mizzi will detract from this success.

A ninth point by Mr Mizzi is a thinly-veiled personal attack which is as inaccurate as it is misleading: "There is no doubt that MCR's chairman gives greatest importance to image, not without the help of taxpayer's money". MCR's long list of significant achievements is the true measure of my track record as chairman and criticism levelled at myself has often been that I give priority to getting things done rather than devoting too much attention to image.

Mr Mizzi's distortion of facts here, however, borders on the incredible and his claims are totally groundless. MCR's audited accounts are presented to parliament and subjected to public scrutiny. If anything, from a review of the accounts, MCR can be accused of spending too little on PR and image.

Mr Mizzi claims that it is the duty of members of parliament to scrutinise the use of taxpayers' money and to see that it is used productively. It is also the duty of members of parliament to oversee the use of public funds in a responsible manner and not to use their position as MPs as launching pads for partisan or personal attacks.

By continuing to make unsubstantiated allegations, Mr Mizzi is risking causing unnecessary damage to a public institution. This behaviour also raises legitimate questions as to his motivation in making MCR the target of partisan attacks.

The national interest is clearly not being served and few (if any) readers can be buying his unfounded allegations. It is time for Mr Mizzi to change course and give credit where it is due: MCR has achieved an incredible amount in a short period of time and this is a reflection of professional management and unreserved commitment by all concerned.

Dr Cannataci is chairman of the board of governors, Malta Centre for Restoration.