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.