The auditor 'audited'? (1)

Like John Ebejer (November 7) I am not a legal person, but unlike him I am not even a planning person. Yet logic and keeping track of an argument are not qualities restricted to legal or planning persons. Even a common or garden citizen, not too concerned with covering his back, can make useful contributions.

Mr Ebejer makes a perfect start, by quoting the law on the function of DCC boards. The critical phrase says "the function of the DCC board is to take a decision on any development application". However, from that clear take-off point, Mr Ebejer moves quickly on to the tricky ground of unofficial and unminuted meetings between applicants and DCC board members. Such meetings are free of legal sanctions, he argues, as there is no intention of taking any decision, and because the number of DCC members present (at one point Mr Ebejer suggests that just the DCC chairman is there) does not constitute a quorum. The requirement that all DCC board meetings be held in public does not apply, as these sessions are not DCC board meetings - hardly a very clever way to get round the law. Without any written record of such meetings, there is no hard evidence that either assertion is actually true.

Then after further disclaimers about his (and the Mepa auditor's) lack of legal expertise, Mr Ebejer quietly torpedoes his own (leaky) boat. He says, "In truth (sic) it is the responsibility of Mepa's case officer to meet the applicant". However - an award-winning aspect of Mepa management this - "some Mepa case officers are averse to holding such meetings", so it is perfectly above board for DCC members to stand in for the case officer, as long as there are not too many of them, no decisions are taken and, one can add, no minutes of the meeting are kept. In that way, the DCC board function - for people attend these meetings by virtue of their DCC board membership - moves from public decision, to (potential) conniving (with applicant), to (certain) persuasion of and (possible) pressure on case officers, particularly the shy violets among these latter. This excellent way of going about things has the added virtue that "difficult" members of DCC boards may never be "invited" to these unofficial meetings and indeed may not even know that they had taken place. Any briefing, in the absence of minutes, can be distorted, inadvertently of course. The "absent" member could be placed at a disadvantage, and even completely outflanked at the public DCC board meeting. Who does the "inviting" anyway? Or do DCC board members invite themselves? Is there a system of rotation? What is it based on?

The accused and now acquitted former board members do deserve some sympathy for being made scapegoats. They acted like sheep rather than goats; and their intention was to protect the case officer, lest he dash his foot against some orlando furioso. The people in the dock should have been those who, by hinting at future but imminent preferment, and by unexplained presence at "consultation" meetings that seem to have cleared up no "obscurities" and to have led to no "improvements", exerted pressure on them.