Meda: The delegate authority

The new inception of Mepa's spy-in-the-sky concept to catch out transgressors and violators or those unscrupulous citizens who build outside ODZ areas is an admirable initiative.

Yet these cameras would truly pay their way if they were trained on Mepa's own headquarters, for here they would realistically locate serious shortcomings in appropriate protocol and ethical and accountable behaviour.

For it is my submission that Mepa should be re-titled with a new and more germane acronym: Meda (with the D signifying Delegate). As that is exactly what they do with important tasks - thereby abrogating responsibility and accountability.

Mepa do indeed delegate when consideration is given to such issues as affixing PA notices of development on site and ensuring enforcement notices are served on offending parties.

For currently these extremely crucial tasks are "farmed out" to third party contractors. In the case of PA notices of development these essential documents are passed on (how soon after they are signed is yet to be determined) to an undisclosed contractor - if one actually exists for Mepa refuse to divulge the name of such a contractor - who then are given carte blanche as to when and where they affix these absolutely vital public awareness appraisals on the site in question.

All without any apparent monitoring or scrutiny by Mepa with reference to time frames, accountability or due process being deployed by this contractor.

What possible reason could Mepa possess to steadfastly refuse to divulge the name of this faceless contractor - who is ultimately paid for out of public coffers?

Regarding the scenario relating to enforcement notices the current modus operandi deployed by Mepa concerning these other absolutely vital documents involves utilising the services of Maltapost to ensure that they reach the offending parties concerned. And it is Maltapost who are therefore tasked, possibly unwillingly and probably unknowingly, as agents in this regard.

In any event, it is a requirement for the party concerned to sign for receipt of this enforcement notice before delivery of such may be deemed as served! So all that is required for the enforcement notice not to be served is for the intended recipient not to be present at the address or for him/her to refuse to sign acceptance of such!

At no stage in proceedings to attempt serving of documents of such a paramount importance is a Mepa agent actually present or involved - nor do Mepa have any apparent control over such crucial aspects of these services.

This, I submit, is a grossly inefficient and unaccountable modus operandi and it is therefore little wonder that abuses of the system are rampant, as highly evident by the large number of complaints registered by members of the public concerning PA notices of development not allowing a sufficient timeframe within the parameters of the period allowed to lodge an objection due to the extreme tardy affixing of such notices on the actual site, which bears no resemblance to the date these notices were actually signed by a Mepa representative in any event.

It is my submission that in abrogating - or delegating - responsibility for delivering these two vital documents, Mepa have demonstrated a complete disregard towards efficiency, accountability and appropriate action by seconding such onerous burdens to third parties, with no obvious structure in situ for monitoring or scrutinising this flawed procedure. It would appear that Mepa have spun an intricate web but somehow forgot the spider!