Yet another restructuring!

The Maltese environment and planning system is one of the hottest topics that concerns the local electorate. Over the years, in an attempt to react positively to the public's increasing demands, various administrations have pushed forward a reform agenda. Once again the minister responsible for the Malta Environment and Planning Authority has announced more effective ways of making better use of resources while strengthening accountability, improving the customer care service and speeding up development control applications.

Processing time is high on the agenda and targets are the daily schedule of officers, adding pressures on the authority's limited human resources. Numbers are more important than quality and this is a serious threat to the planning system and the customers themselves. Every year the Planning Directorate is faced with an arduous task of reducing the pending caseload despite the lack of sufficient new staff intake and increase in workload. This is further confirmed through a recent press conference during which the minister made reference to a UK consultant report that case officers at Mepa have "triple the workload of their British counterparts".

Moreover, the Environment Protection Directorate (EPD) at Mepa is also struggling to satisfy the recently adopted EU obligations arising out of the environment acquis and carry out its functions within the local legislative framework.

The EPD also contributes to the development control process of the Planning Directorate. A recent restructuring exercise for this directorate was carried out after a number of reports by foreign consultants were commissioned by Mepa. This exercise was carried out without any consultation with the Union Professjonisti ta l-Awtorità dwar l-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar (UPAP) - a house union that represents Mepa's professional employees.

Despite several proposals by Mepa management for a new structure, resources available for its implementation are lacking. This results in Mepa staff being under continuous pressure, while being expected to carry out multiple tasks that go far beyond the individuals' capacity, hence jeopardising staff performance. UPAP is currently undertaking a study on the relative resources required for the current obligations identified in Mepa's business plan to be implemented in a professional way.

The UPAP has always shown a positive attitude toward previous restructuring efforts although - and this is sadly once again the case - Mepa's management attitude has always been to keep the union in the dark until all decisions have been taken and announced. In fact, the Change Team announced by the minister is once again a surprise to the union since the latter has not been included in the restructuring process when it has such a key positive role to play. This is a shame, considering that Mepa is driven by the very same professionals that make up the UPAP. It is also clearly unacceptable, since the union's members, as has always been the case, shall definitely be the ones most affected by the changes.

On record, this is the third major restructuring in Mepa's (and formerly the Planning Authority's) 13-year history. However, to date, no indication has been given as to the level of the government's commitment, especially in terms of fresh recruitment, staff training and incentive schemes for staff.

The UPAP has experienced, and therefore understands only too well, the government's reticence to commit further financial resources to the cause. After all, it has been involved in a three-year long battle over the new collective agreement, which is four years overdue and in which the main bone of contention is the financial package.

Everyone understands the need to have Mepa operating as a cutting edge, efficient organisation, and that one cannot compromise when the quality of the urban and rural environment are at stake.

It is no secret to anyone that staff at Mepa have often been demoralised by this effective lack of involvement in decisions which affect their livelihood and careers. Motivation of the authority's employees is essential for the delivery of quality services. Yet another restructuring effort is announced and management still ignores the collective identity of employees as expressed through the unions by not inviting the same unions to participate and contribute in the change process.

This negative managerial attitude towards Mepa employees can only be corrected by thinking of people as a primary resource. Hence, valuing the contributions and directly involving the eventual implementers of the new "system" can only be of benefit to the change process. Unfortunately the organisation culture at Mepa is that the staff are the last to know what is going to happen to their role and career.

As a union, we hold firm in the belief that people are our nation's primary resource. Mepa employees have shown time and time again that they can deliver quality services to the nation. The collective efforts of present and past employees have effectively allowed the introduction of significant changes in the scenarios of land use planning, development and environment protection. The entire nation recognises the value of the organisation and the fact that it has successfully replaced a formerly opaque and chaotic system.

It is high time that the Mepa management, and indeed the government itself, start to recognise the fact that the employees are an integral part of this success and that they, through their chosen representatives, should be allowed to participate in the reform process.

Mr Attard is president of the Union tal-Professjonisti ta' l-Awtorità ta' Malta dwar l-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar.