Mepa disagrees with audit officer's comments
Mepa said today that is disagreed with comments made by its own audit officer as reported in the press on Monday, saying that those comments contrasted with a decision taken by the courts (in the Mistra case).
The audit officer, Joe Falzon, was reported by The Times on Monday as saying that he disagreed with a court ruling that meetings between planning officers and developers were normal practice. He insisted that such meetings were illegal.
"I do not know when the practice of one-on-one meetings started. I had been chairman of the DCC board for six years, and I never had any one-on-one meetings with developers and objectors. I believe it is illegal because planning law says DCC meetings have to be held in public," Mr Falzon said.
Mepa in a statement this afternoon pointed out that the audit officer had given his evidence in court, but the court had concluded that: " It appears such meetings could be held in a legitimate manner and there does not appear to have been anything irregular about them. Indeed, the Authority set up a Complaints Office and appointed a Liaison Officer for this purpose."
The Authority said in its statement, however that all procedures should be held in a transparent manner in the best interests of the applicants, the objectors, and the public. One of the purposes of the current reform was to increase transparency in the planning process, Mepa said.
15 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Stephen Borg Cardona
Nov 5th 2009, 01:32
I hope that the Attorney General will do his duty and appeal this questionable judgment.
A Camilleri
Nov 4th 2009, 19:42
My faith is in Mr. Falzon
Jane Clare
Nov 4th 2009, 19:33
When visiting MEPA Front Office today, I read a notice marked "Freedom of Information" which said that all planning decisions are to be made public including the "reasons for decisions". How strange it is then that the DCC committee minutes are not available to the public by any means - even though DCC decisions often are made contrary to the Case Office recommendations which imply a need to explain/justify.
Why do the DCC breach policy and ignore professional advice so often - we need to be told!
PS Other commentators seem to confuse illegal (against the law as in a breach of acts or regulations) with criminal (likely to be a matter for the Police) in the Internal Auditors recent remark? The distinction between civil and criminal law is basic as are the remedies. The Police are unlikely to get excited about anyone breaking a MEPA regulation unless the foul is made in a violent manner!
Mario Vassallo
Nov 4th 2009, 19:12
I am afraid that MEPA is hounded by its own crimes! Whatever you touch in there, there seem to be hidden agendas, under the table dealings and quite often the manifest use of legalese to hide what the average sensible man would readily frown upon.
Mr Falzon is an honourable man, who is defending what is fair and just. Recent writings in the press, often by architects who have suddenly acquired an intimate knowledge of the laws and the law courts, suggests that so much is going on that it is difficult to know where to start. 'Min jiflah ihawwel' is very real in the construction industry and instead of providing clear and fair procedures, MEPA appears to have produced a lot of confusion, preferential treatments with the very obvious results that the Maltese physical environment and the architectural heritage has been in large part destroyed.
We should be ashamed that our generations has done so much harm and that we are bequeting to our heirs the mess we have created. Instead of being a guardian of fairness, justice and balanced development, MEPA has unfortunately been used by many as the instrument to destroy, andv to produce the ugly.
Horace Buttigieg
Nov 4th 2009, 18:55
MEPA - ADT - VAT Dept. Three tangled cobwebs of dubious corruption and illegalities. Scrap them all Dr Gonzi - they're the rope that will ultimately hang you to dry.
P.Cassar
Nov 4th 2009, 18:55
Dear Mepa
The last paragraph outdoes all that you wrote before.
All true Maltese agree with the auditor and NOT on this occasion only. It would be much better for us if you heed, every time, what he admonishes you about. It would save you and esp us innumerable blunders.
J. Schembri
Nov 4th 2009, 18:32
They all 'sing' like the Nabucco Choir :"It was not illegal , and we are no longer making secret meetings".
If the sentence is appealed by the AG with Mr Falzon's arguments the public will put more trust in MEPA.
Ms Rose Grech,It is irrelevant how many ODZ permits were issued to Mr Falzon.
Rightly said J oatmon ; " What a can of worms!"
Joe Vella
Nov 4th 2009, 18:26
The MEPA Auditor have lost all confidence; the only option left for him is to resign asap.
tony abela
Nov 4th 2009, 18:23
As far as I know the Courts decides what is legal and what is not. The ethics, transparency, accountability and good management has nothing to do with legality. Therefore, the MEPA Auditor is more than right immaterial what the Courts says. On what grounds being an Objector on three cases and DCC did not allow me nor my Lawyer to talk and then MEPA itself admits that private meetings are a norm and not an exeption?
J oatmon
Nov 4th 2009, 18:04
An auditor is supposed to find whatever faults there are and get them corrected.
At MEPA they even disregard the words of their own auditor!
What a can of worms MEPA is - get Scotland Yard in from the UK and clean it up PN.
R Grech
Nov 4th 2009, 17:19
is it true what what Musumeci stated, namely that when the Auditor was Chairman of the DCC approved 1495 planning permits in ODZ?
D. A . Agius
Nov 4th 2009, 16:43
have as much meetings as you want... the clout around mepa is so bad and such a disagreement confirm why people have little confidence in Mepa.
Joseph Ellis
Nov 4th 2009, 16:30
These comments just show how hollow the attempts at reforming MEPA are. The crux of the matter is : does MEPA condone the holding of private meetings between applicants and DCC board members to discuss individual applications or not ? The fact that a magistrate has held that such practice is normal does not mean that it is correct.
If MEPA were really intent on ensuring that its proceedings are undertaken in the maximum of transparency, it would ensure that such direct contact between DCC board members and applicants and their architects does not take place. What's the point of not allowing applicants to voice their comments during DCC board meetings (unless at reconsideration stage), if private meetings can be held with DCC members under the aegis of the Liaison Officer ?
MEPA should not undermine its auditor and in one breath say that it wants more transparency and in the other, opposes measures that would ensure such transparency.
Michael Mizzi
Nov 4th 2009, 16:00
Everybody who is familiar with MEPA's workings would tend to agree more with Mr Joe Falzon, the experienced MEPA auditor. Sometimes what may appear to be legitimate is plain unethical, and in the worst case could be corrupt.
Deo Catania
Nov 4th 2009, 15:49
@Mepa. ZARMA, saret wisq hsara u hnizrijiet.