Betrayal of trust

The preliminary report on the Sant'Antnin plant prepared by Mepa's audit office was issued by Carmel Cacopardo two weeks ago. The publication of the preliminary report goes against all ethical standards and, according to a legal friend of mine, could possibly be illegal.

Here are the facts of the case.

The preliminary report was prepared by Mr Cacopardo himself who at the time was the investigating officer at Mepa's audit office. On the advice of the Ombudsman, the auditor had not proceeded with the completion of the report because an appeal against the issue of the permit was still pending.

Prior to publication, the audit officer, Joe Falzon, declared his disagreement that Mr Cacopardo should publish the report and said: "I disagree that an internal report to which Mr Cacopardo had access by reason of the post he occupied should be made use of for political ends".

The Ombudsman expressed a similar opinion.

Any self-respecting code of ethics prohibits the disclosure of "official information or documents acquired in the course of his or her employment" even after the termination of the employment. The fact that this was done blatantly for a political end makes the case all the more serious.

Mr Cacopardo defied the advice given by the two institutions and went ahead with the publication because "it is in the public interest". The fact that this was published just three weeks before an election suggests that to Mr Cacopardo "public interest" and his attempts to get elected are synonymous.

Mr Cacopardo's decision to publish the report is all the more serious as it casts doubts on the work he was carrying out when he was investigating officer. Any person's decision to become an activist in a political party is not taken overnight. More so if this decision implies withdrawing one's membership in another party. It requires much thought and discussion. I therefore find it difficult to believe that, at the time he was investigating officer at Mepa (until April 2007) he was not already contemplating joining AD. In fact, in a letter to The Times on March 21, 2007 he wrote "... the day is fast approaching when voters will seriously consider selecting a third option; green".

Could it be that he was already considering the possibility of standing for elections under the AD banner? In that case, one would be justified to wonder whether he had any hidden agenda! One can draw one's own conclusions but the bias which, in my opinion, is demonstrated in the preliminary Sant'Antnin report published unilaterally certainly suggests that to me.

In another case relating to consultations on local plans, the auditor officer and Mr Cacopardo chose to give an interpretation of section 27 (2) of the Development Planning Act without seeking the advice of a lawyer. As it turned out, there already existed a legal interpretation given independently by two lawyers. This was diametrically opposite to the interpretation given by Mr Cacopardo as investigating officer. Why did Mr Cacopardo go ahead with his interpretation without seeking legal advice? Was it just a coincidence that this interpretation eventually happened to suit best his political agenda?

Mr Falzon trusted Mr Cacopardo. He trusted him to draft the report, to select what information to include and what to ignore.

He also trusted his judgement. The eventual final report would be largely shaped by the investigating officer, with the Mepa auditor at best changing details and emphasis but not the substance. In the circumstances, it now does appear, albeit by hindsight, that the trust Mr Falzon gave Mr Cacopardo at the time was unjustified.

Mr Cacopardo's unethical action also confirms that the Mepa board was right when it refused to renew his contract as investigating officer.

The conflicts of interest evident at the time more than amply justified their mistrust. As investigating officer, he would be in a position to investigate the Director of Environment - a post he felt was rightfully his, as he publicly insisted. He would also be in a position to investigate the very persons who had not selected him for the post. And to investigate the Mepa employees who process applications for development submitted by him in the course of his private practice.

Mr Cacopardo is known to act as if he thinks he is morally superior to other lesser mortals. Yet, in this case, he found no problem going against all ethical norms.