Mepa shuns auditor's comments

James A. Tyrrell

Nov 5th 2009, 20:55

@John Schembri. John I think it is plain to see that things are running exactly the same way as they always have at MEPA. The same two rules apply, one for the little guy and one for the big guy. The big guy being the one with more money!

@Andrew Calleja. According to you Andrew the auditor should simply shut his mouth and fall into line with what MEPA and hence what the Government want. What the hell is the point of having an auditor if he's not allowed to speak unless he agrees with everything MEPA and the Government say?

J. Schembri

Nov 5th 2009, 17:55

@ Andrew Calleja: In you rprevious contribution you prudently wrote : "As I see it...." Now you look more dogmatic.
You are being technical quoting chapter and verse , I'm interpreting the same written words in the spirit in which they were intended to mean.
I don't think the legislator wanted the DCC board members to meet building developers privately away from the public .If a developer can meet one in private there would be no holding him from meeting all the others at one go in private.
I am not the self appointed attorney of Mr Falzon , all I can say is that there are around 68% of the Times readers who think that this issue was not closed with this debatable sentence.People like me are just asking the AG to use Mr Falzon's arguments to appeal against this sentence.
We are living in 2009 where even the Pope's Urbi et Orbi declarations-which are rare- are questioned by his flock , let alone an unappealed sentence in the First Hall of our court.
When all these democratic checks and balances are exhausted we can put our mind at rest that things are running as they should at MEPA.

Andrew Calleja

Nov 5th 2009, 16:38

@John Schembri

That is what YOU believe, YOUR interpretation of the legal text. The actual text does not state what you are trying to affirm. The same thing applies to the stand taken by the auditor.

The auditor is seen to be in constant conflict with legal advisors because he wants to give his own interpretation to the law. Instead of creating controversy and in the process misguiding the public, the auditor should adopt a more proactive approach to fulfill his convictions.

If the auditor wants to do things the right way he should recommend to Government that the matter be taken up while it is considering the reform of MEPA. Government has already stated that it will have to amend the legal text to facilitate the reform changes under consideration. I am sure that if the auditor’s suggestion is deemed appropriate and desirable there will be no problem in including it as part of the reform.

Until such time, it will be diabolical on his part to persist in error on a matter of law.

J. Schembri

Nov 5th 2009, 15:26

"13. (5) The meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public,"
It goes without saying that a member of this commission cannot hold other meetings with permit applicants away from public scrutiny.
If one is a member of a commission which is bound to hold its meetings in public , one cannot organise a meeting behind the back of the other members .
Commission membership does not start and stop with the commision meetings.
If anything it would be highly unfair for the other commission members.

DVella

Nov 5th 2009, 15:09

For all those pontificating below, it may interest you to know that Mr Falzon is a former Chairman of the Development Control Commission and it was precisely during his tenure that the board approved the current development that is marring the valley at Mistra . . . supposedly a 'Recording Studio' which turned out slightly more than that!!

even were it not for this, one can ahrdly be surprised if the Auditor's 'valued' opinion is taken with a hefty pinch of salt (and then some) when he is given to habitually descending into a tirade of barely veiled insinuations and accusations when investigating certain cases, AND going public with them, rather than maintaining a proper objective attitude and a detached stance as befits the post ! ! !

Andrew Calleja

Nov 5th 2009, 12:25

The following is an extract from the Development Planning Act. The section being quoted regulates the procedure of the DCC:

3. The Development Control Commission
13. (5) The meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public, subject to the
power of the Commission to exclude any member of the public if it deems it necessary
so to do for the maintenance of order. .……………..At the request of any member of the Commission, the deliberations of the Commission shall be held in private but every vote, shall be conducted in public. No secret vote shall be allowed....................

(7) Subject to the foregoing provisions, and to any rules that may be prescribed
by the Authority, the Commission may regulate its own procedures.

As I see it, there is nothing in the law that suggests that meetings involving individual members of the DCC are illegal. The law clearly dictates that the vote on applications during a FORMAL SITTING OF THE DCC has to be conducted in public and even allows the DCC to deliberate in private at the exclusion of all interested parties.

Meetings such as the one in the Mistra case can never be interpreted as being official DCC meetings.

A Borg

Nov 5th 2009, 11:50

No surprise MEPA’s credibility is next to zero. No surprise MEPA…

…wanted to allow building of villas at Ramla.

…will allow building of villa in Bahrija

… allowed building of supermarket despite this being dangerously close to airport runway

and the list goes on.

J. Schembri

Nov 5th 2009, 10:42

We know that the Mepa Auditor is Architect Falzon , can anyone tell us who exactly is this person hiding behind the anonymity of Mepa and is shunning Mr Falzon's valued opinion?
In Maltese we have a saying "jitfa' l-gebla u jahbi idu".
What a bunch of cowards!

Franco Farrugia

Nov 5th 2009, 09:22

Can we have the Auditor's terms of reference? What is the use of having such an Officer if his opinion is then not considered? What s going on?