Local council secretaries

I refer to the article Missing the Point by Malcolm Mifsud, President of the Nationalist Party's College of Councillors (July 8), in which he implied that rather than submitting a petition to the Deputy Prime Minister appealing to the government to automatically grant a permanent contract of employment to council executive secretaries after occupying the post for four years, the Union Haddiema Maghqudin (UHM) and the Local Councils Executive Secretaries Association (ASKLM) should have slammed the Labour Party for the way it was trying to remove certain secretaries from their post once the party gains the majority of councillors.

Dr Mifsud, coming from the party in government, has every right to point fingers and claim that discrimination and non-observance of the law was coming from one direction - the MLP. However, if the President of the PN's College of Councillors is against discrimination and non-observance of the law, the least that we expect is a clear indication that he and his party support the very essence of the petition, i.e. that executive secretaries (and all other local councils' employees) should enjoy indefinite contracts of work. If we really want to curb abuses and eliminate discrimination, now and in the future, then that's the only way forward. Furthermore, this would be a demonstration of his party's support for these workers' rights as EU citizens.

UHM and ASKLM strongly believe that it is in the interest of the country that no council uses the contract of employment as a weapon to twist the executive secretary's role at the council. If the government and the opposition are seeking accountability and fairness, then both parties should join forces with the UHM and ASKLM, and give permanency to such posts. By definition of laws, the executive secretary holds an apolitical office, and hence is not a political appointee and is the only means of continuity in local governments in Malta. After all, mayors and councillors come and go at the peoples' will.

UHM and ASKLM have always worked in tandem to defend the interests of all local council executive secretaries. The present ASKLM president, Adrian Mifsud, enjoys the trust and has the full backing of the UHM. All actions were taken after the approval of the executive secretaries, after due consultation with the UHM, and thus the claims against Mr Mifsud as portrayed by Dr Mifsud are unfounded. UHM represents both the executive secretaries and all the other personnel working with local councils, and together with ASKLM has since the inception of local councils entered into all disputes that arose over the last 12 years. UHM and ASKLM commend the stands being taken by the Home Affairs Minister whereby he is resisting cases where certain local councils are trying to replace executive secretaries simply because there was a change in the council's make-up. However, since fixed-term contracts are still in place, certain local councils are simply playing the game and waiting until the three-year contract expires. At that stage, local councils have every right to terminate the contract without giving any reason whatsoever.

The bottom line is that without permanent posts, the local councillors, i.e. the political parties, can continue to play around with the local councils' employees, even at the expense of public funds. Even Parliament is aware of this situation - the Auditor General has in fact made the same requests that UHM and ASKLM are promoting! So, who's missing the point?