Off the mark

Michael Falzon was deliberately off the mark in yesterday's Talking Point. He asks: "Why does Carmel Cacopardo want the job of investigator with Mepa's auditor so much?"

The answer is very simple: I never wanted it. I never asked for it. I never lobbied for it. I never requested it. It was simply offered to me by Joe Falzon, Mepa's audit officer who felt that I was suitable for the job. Moreover, it has since transpired that the proposal was, way back in 2004, agreed to by Mr Falzon with Minister George Pullicino. I knew nothing about the matter until I was approached by Mr Falzon who enquired whether I would be in a position to assist him. In 2004 I accepted his request.

When Mr Falzon's term was recently renewed he considered that I had done a good job and recommended that I be reappointed. It is pretty obvious that Mr Falzon's criteria of what makes a good job are substantially different from Mr Falzon's!

I will not judge myself as to whether I acted professionally, honestly and to the best of my abilities in the role of investigating officer at the Mepa audit office. I will leave that to others. Their testimonial is sufficient and carries weight.

Mr Falzon would do well to read through Mr Falzon's various statements wherein he motivated his decision to insist on my being reappointed. Afterwards he could read through Labour MP and former Minister Joe Brincat's statement issued to disassociate himself from Mepa's position as well as an article penned by former Labour Minister Joe Micallef Stafrace in last Sunday's Torca. I am purposely referring to the testimonial of two former Labour ministers in view of my past active involvement in the Nationalist Party for over 20 years. There are plenty more but these two are more than sufficient.

Mr Falzon tries to sow doubts about my integrity by querying as to the real motivations for what he calls my persistence to refill the post of investigating officer at the Mepa audit office. Instead of asking loaded questions why is he afraid to speak out clearly? Go on, say it and face the music!

There are other questions which Mr Falzon should ask. They are being asked by the man in the street. A sample would be the following:

Question: Why is Mepa objecting to my reappointment ?

Answer: Because there is no real commitment to accountability and transparency.

Question: When did the real reasons for the non-renewal of my contract arise?

Answer: On April 7, 2006, approximately one month after the audit office had concluded an investigation into the workings of Mepa chairman Andrew Calleja.

As part of the investigation, the chairman himself and a number of senior Mepa officers were interviewed.

I led that investigation and its conclusions are referred to in brief in the 2006 audit office annual report. A more detailed report exists.

Question: Did I consider any other proposal?

Answer: Yes an attempt was made to kick me upstairs and get me out of the way. The attempt was carried out late in March 2006. When I refused to play ball this whole saga about the renewal of my contract commenced.

In this land of coincidences all this occurred within days. I will undoubtedly have the opportunity to speak out in the near future in more detail.

These are the questions and answers which Mr Falzon should ponder about.

Finally, I point out that while Mr Falzon is entitled to his warped views, in my opinion he is not fit to pass judgement on my performance.