The issue of the renewal of Carmel Cacopardo's contract as investigating officer in the Mepa audit office has returned to the headlines. Had Mr Cacopardo done his duty to the satisfaction of his superiors in his first term of office? It appears that his boss, the audit officer, is more than happy with the result. So why not renew his contract? Does the refusal to renew his tenure create a precedent? How does it affect other employees with the government and government agencies on fixed-term contracts?
Does fulfilling one's duties have no bearing on securing another term? If not, what does? Subservience to those who expect you to do and die and never question why? What sort of civil service does that produce? Should we then be scandalised that many civil servants focus on their pay packet, simply avoiding dismissal and doing the barest acceptable minimum? What happened to recognition of effort, reward for merit, loyalty to the rule of law?
Mr Cacopardo is a born pain in the neck. He seemed to be fitted out by nature for just such a post. It takes someone who will not be satisfied with stonewalling, with facile answers nor with the cleverest ruse to keep people on the wrong trail. Internal audit demands just such a character, someone who can drag colleagues, workmates and his superiors over the coals if his investigation requires it.
To do this over and over again it must be made clear in every instance that the only loyalty given any weight is loyalty to the law. In a culture of cosy arrangements, where the networks of friends and relatives are constantly busy trading favours big and small, it takes steadfast consistency to persuade those whose crimes or misdemeanors are exposed that there is nothing personal in it all.
Andrew Calleja's expose of the reasons why Mr Cacopardo's contract was not renewed forms part of a swiftly gelling tradition of exhaustive if, unconvincing justification of the most inexplicable actions by the government, its agencies and its ministers.
The publication of internal correspondence on the issue and an Ombudsman's report on a related case only tell part of the story but are intended to demonstrate Mepa's openness to scrutiny. It seems a bit late in the day and more than a little out of character. It may have been the audit office's greatest victory and, apparently, the result of a truly uphill climb to have its reports published in part. Mepa even resisted the issue of reports by the audit office to complainants. Its annual report for 2006, in which the conflict with the audit office becomes apparent, is unique in the annals of government publications. Mepa has earned a reputation for secretiveness and its sudden change of heart is less than convincing.
Mr Calleja's thesis is that Mr Cacopardo is on a personal crusade of vengeance assuming "erroneously" that Mr Calleja has thwarted his ambitions to head the environment protection wing of Mepa. Mr Calleja claims that the post of investigating officer is incompatible with that of an applicant for the post of EP director who is contesting the appointment of another contender. It all came to grief when he added as a final cherry on top that Mr Cacopardo had committed the mortal sin of chairing an Alternattiva Demokratika consultation meeting many months after Mr Calleja had refused to renew his contract. It all seemed like rationalisation, finding an excuse for a desired conclusion. Wow, anybody remotely and most superficially connected to the Greens is a pariah in a time warp.
Had this been a matter of personal or political pique, had it been a matter of revenge for the impertinent exposure of cosy arrangements of longstanding, it would have been of less interest than it is. The government's mistake was to appoint Mr Cacopardo in the first place. It should have been clear as daylight that he would do his job far better than anybody involved in the incestuous relations of politics and construction could stand. He was bound to drive through Mepa's pathetic excuses for public consultations like a runaway train. He was bound to object to cosy conversations between developers and Mepa's top officials away from the boardroom itself. He was certainly going to make a first class nuisance of himself.
It would have been of immense credit to Mepa had his contract been renewed without murmur after the thick ears he had handed out all around. It was too much to expect. Mepa has followed the predicted course: It has tried to get rid of Mr Cacopardo. Also in a well established tradition it has tried to discredit him, attempting to smear him with a taint of concealed personal interest. What a fiasco. It has declared to the world that it cannot tolerate an efficient internal audit.
Things may now have gone too far for Mr Cacopardo to expect to be reinstated. The Mepa chairman may have made a small tactical gain in going so far out on a limb to keep Mr Cacopardo out. Now it would mean too great a loss of face for the course to be reversed. Still, this skirmish may have been won by the Mepa chairman at the cost of the loss of the war.
The Cacopardo-Calleja saga threatens to demolish the last vestiges of the Mepa façade. Its final collapse threatens not only Mr Calleja but the long chain of command at his rear. It could also expose the poor design in having fixed-term contracts right through Mepa rendering technical staff servicing the development and environment protection regulator subject to the sort of treatment meted out to Mr Cacopardo. The question arises unbidden: What sort of independence can we expect from the country's foremost quasi judicial body in such circumstances?
It all goes far beyond justice to Mr Cacopardo or a rebuke to Mr Calleja for indecorum. It erodes public confidence in a crucial national institution. It leaves us all asking why.
Dr Vassallo is chairman of Alternattiva Demokratika - the Green party.
www.alternattiva.org.mt, www.adgozo.com