Tuesday, 3rd November 2009
Talking Point
The Mepa auditor's remit
I was deeply disappointed to note that the Mepa audit officer really and truly seems unaware of the main responsibilities which fall upon Mepa's liaison officer, on reading his interview yesterday under the headline Private Planning Meetings "Illegal".
From a close look at the job description given to the liaison officer, it transpires without any shadow of a doubt that this officer's central role is to "discuss contentious issues with applicants for planning permission in order to achieve appropriate planning solutions". He has also to "maintain a customer service profile that is open and accessible". Nonetheless, it is evident, as also stated in the job description, that it is his duty to "facilitate negotiation processes leading to improved planning decisions while helping to ensure customer satisfaction across a broad range of stakeholders".
Consequently, it is a fallacy for the Mepa audit officer to state that the Magistrate was wrong in ruling that such meetings constitute a normal, legitimate process. It definitely takes a lot of audacity for a Mepa auditor to undermine one of the three pillars of society - the judiciary - which is responsible for upholding democracy in a civil society. It is with great regret that such a high profile officer should put such an institution into disrepute when after all, the word of the court is law.
The Auditor goes on to state that DCC meetings have to be held in public - this is correct, but by no stretch of the imagination can we interpret a meeting between an applicant, DCC members and the liaison officer (as happened during the Mistra application process) as constituting a DCC meeting as defined by law, since these meetings are only intended to iron out contentious issues.
With reference to what the Mepa auditor also stated, in particular that "in closed meetings board members can compromise themselves because they will only be meeting the applicant to the exclusion of objectors and other interested parties", it must be recalled that in the Mistra application this affirmation finds no applicability since there were no registered objectors or interested parties who could possibly have been present for these closed meetings. So here again the Mepa auditor is making a blanket statement with no applicability to the case under review.
It transpires from a superficial reading of section 17c of Chapter 356 that the legislator did not set up the Mepa auditor merely to provide a mechanism for internal audit, or to improve administrative practice and promote efficiency, but certainly the legislator intended that such officer has to be seen as the guarantor of the citizen's right to be treated fairly and equitably by both the Authority and the public. His function is to investigate complaints and identify shortcomings. He is not there to verify if the various boards of Mepa have misapplied the law. This is a function of the Planning Appeals Board or the First Hall of Civil Court on a point of law. It is of utmost importance that such officer understands and appreciates the remit of his office.
It is a great pity to note that the Mepa auditor, whose office was created by Act XXI of 2001, is seemingly unwilling to embrace the court decision and learn from it. Instead he decided to branch off and make sweeping statements which are not supported by any legislation or planning practice. Such a stance is unwarranted and is only welcome in a laissez faire society where the principles of democracy do not reign!
An architect by profession, Mr Musumeci s the Nationalist mayor of Siġġiewi.
RSS
Comments
And what point do you really want to make when you point out that meetings with developers were not suspended during Mr Falzon's stint as DCC chairman and PA deputy chairman? Could it be that it was subsequent to this stint that he began to see and hear of dubious practices and strange decisions? And what is the great merit of stopping meetings behind closed doors with ALL the board present but not those with only two board members present? You still seem to be fully in favour of this.
Well, Dr Gonzi has thought it fit to REFORM Mepa. He must have had a very good reason to enter such tricky territory and tackle a thorny national problem.
Will this ‘good’ practice of meetings behind closed doors, no objectors present, be retained in the Reform? Time will tell. We with no power can only hope.
I appreciate your putting me in the same category as Mr Falzon; I certainly do not deserve the honour. The vast majority of our people admire the man for his honesty and courage in speaking up against certain Mepa decisions which are generally considered, let’s say, ‘incomprehensible’ and which have raised the Authority to the top of the charts of the most detested entities in Malta (unfair as this is with the Environment Directorate) On the contrary Mr Falzon is considered by many as their last bulwark, albeit with very little power, against some of the Authority’s Boards.
As for your last comment I can only say that now it must be you who is playing the fool with me. Did you read my last comment? Then why do you bypass it? Instead you give us a lesson on the clever legal distinction between’ meetings’ and ‘decisions’ which according to law should held or taken in public. Do you really expect anyone not to suspect that the groundwork for decisions, which have often between dubious, or controversial, or even had to be withdrawn, had not already been taken in those meetings which are not public?
Then you are as hopelessly lost as the dear auditor in view of the fact that according to him the practice is considered illegal since, and I quote from the Times:
"I believe it is illegal because planning law says DCC meetings have to be held in public," Mr Falzon said.
Therefore, according to the auditor, the law states that the Authority board and committees should conduct all its meetings in public. Well, to be exact, what the law actually states is that all decisions taken by the boards on development application have to be conducted in public.
Subsequent Boards (as opposed to the one where he was deputy chairman at the PA) actually discontinued the practice of holding private meetings with developers and architects.
If you cannot at this moment grasp my argument then further explanation will be pointless.
I assure you I am not. So I dread to think that I might be misunderstanding you again because what I make of your last comment is that Mepa chose to ditch the good practice and retain the dubious one. I find this very sad. The choice, I mean, not the possible misunderstanding. I find consolation in the fact that I understand perfectly what Mr Falzon, Mepa Auditor , writes. I find it very convincing and heartening,
You seem to be playing the fool. You quote a part of a sentence which I will reproduce in full. Please read again and understand what i wrote:
"In fact, at that time, the whole Board used to hold informal private meetings with developers and their architects as part of their official meeting agenda, a practice which was discontinued in later years. "
I was referring to the meetings with applicants and architects that the whole PA Board used to hold in relation to development applications that were still being processed by the directorate. THIS practice was discontinued.
On the other hand, a representation of the board or its chairman could always mediate on contentious matters to get a better grasp of the issues involved and attempt to iron out possible misunderstandings without the involvement of the whole board. This practice was not discontinued.
I don't mind if an architect quotes the law to the letter , to reach his end , that's his 'job'.
I don't expect a Local Council Mayor to use his position to 'cut down to size' a public official ,it's not his remit.
I expect a PN candidate to work against such dubious practices and encourage the AG to appeal against this decission.
He cannot wear any hat he likes to suite his purpose.
@ Mr Andrew Calleja
You say: "a practice which was discontinued in later years". Could it be that such meetings were discontinued because they were found to be, if not 'illegal', 'irregular', 'suspicious' or 'dubious' ? I cannot see why a practice, which had been used for years and proved beneficial, should be discontinued. Was there some suggestion from a higher authority to discontinue such meetings? Do help us understand.
It is about an Auditor who was too hard-headed to accept the advice of the legal advisors of MEPA. He was told that his interpretation of the law on DCC chairperson’s meetings with applicants was wrong and yet he persisted even to the point of questioning the Court’s decision.
Who should we believe on legal matters; someone who is NOT a lawyer or a court of law?
John Schembri: Really and truly, Perit Musumeci has one interest in this case – he has cut down the size the auditor. In fact it was also Musumeci , incidentally a PN exponent, who exposed the auditor in a separate article and unearthed that during Falzon’s tenure as DCC Chairman, there were 1495 applications in ODZ which were approved!
I think Musumeci is the kind of politician which we need – there is no mincing with words.
He speaks facts and technicalities!
So what are your comments Messrs Agius and Schembri?
Just look at the percentage of people who think this court decission did not close this case . Mr Falzon's objections should be scrutinised in an appeals court.
You have completely misunderstood my point or you want to deliberately misinterpret my comment.
My point is simply this - Why is the auditor now saying the practice is illegal when he found no problem in holding such meetings during his time on the Planning Authority board?
I think that this is a very uncomplicated question to comprehend.
The issue is not whether such meetings should or should not be held. The issue is whether the Auditor is right when he says they are illegal. The Court does not think they are illegal. Anyone in his right senses would take the Court’s decision as being correct, as opposed to the opinion of someone who has no legal training and experience.
Andrew Calleja is absolutely right when he says: “If the auditor disagrees with the practice of holding such meetings he should then recommend that the law is amended accordingly.”
One News thrills itself when quoting what the auditor say because his words please their ears.
The problem is that picking the holes in both these gentlemen's arguments needs a lengthy article not a comment.
This is why it is rather odd that we are now being told that such meetings should be held in public because they are illegal. Why is it that the practice is now considered illegal when there was no legislative change on this specific matter since the auditor’s stint as a board member?
continued . . .
Mela ma jiftakarx il-laqghat ma l-izvillupaturi kbar li kienu isiru wara il-bibien maghluqa meta hu kien deputy chairman fl-awtorita ta' l-ippjanar? Jekk ma jiftakarx jista imur fittex fil-minuti tal-Bord tal PA ta' zmienu u zgur jerga jgedded il-memorja ta' kif il-Bord kollu (bih inkluz) kien jaghmel dawn it-tip ta' laqghat minghajr ma jinvolvi lil terzi persuni jew l-objectors. Ta dan ghandi il provi u lest li nghaddihom lit-Times jekk ghandhom problema biex igibu dan il-kumment.
Nistaqsi - Dak li kien isir fi znienu kien imur iktar ma l-ispirtu tal-ligi ghax kien jkun hemm il-bord kollu u mhux wiehed jew tnejn mill-membri biss? Nippretendi xi forma ta' spjegazzjoni .
In this day and age every institution and everyone should be under public scrutiny.
Many people are asking for the AG to appeal against this sentence. May I remind Mr Musumeci that even one of the pillars of our democracy is prone to make mistakes.Just have a look in today's papers .