Mepa's 'normal practice' open to abuse

Lawrence Gonzi seems to have embarked on a relentless campaign designed to portray Mepa auditor Joseph Falzon as a danger to democracy, because of his lack of "respect" for the higher institutions of the Republic. This heavy emphasis on uncritical "respect" has a clear self-serving element.

So what did the magistrate conclude on this point? That Mepa had a complaints and liaison officer (CLO), with a brief to iron out issues between the planning authority officers and developers. The way this brief was put into "normal practice" involved the CLO choosing a few (less than a quorum) DCC board members to meet with the developer. But the tag "normal practice" does not automatically confer legality. DCC board members are not "planning authority officers". John Ebejer, chairman of the Building Industry Consultative Council, has asserted that the Mepa persons attending such meetings should be the case officers, even if he then condoned "normal practice" by citing what he alleged were case officer shortcomings.

This weakness in the legal underpinning of "normal practice" cannot be ignored; it also raises a number of questions. It was said that the CLO chose the DCC board members to attend a particular meeting. What was the basis of the choice? Why are no minutes kept? How could the real "planning officers" and the other DCC board members be informed properly, with no written record of the meetings? Indeed, were all of the DCC board members informed of the results?

Clearly the "normal practice" was open to abuse. This does not seem to have been a concern of the magistrate; presumably the court is there to deal with facts and not potential facts. Yet the court made no attempt to establish the "facts" in this case, i.e. to determine whether the "normal practice" had involved abuse. And surely abuse had taken place, in the very visible presence of Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. What was he doing at the "private" meeting? He was not the applicant; still less was he a Mepa person. So on what basis was he invited? There he was hovering in the wings, hinting at future, powerful preferment. Did he speak or did he keep silent? The accused felt that the mere presence of Dr Pullicino Orlando at the meetings "influenced their decision": that sounds like an admission of some guilt.

The feeling of being under pressure was carried over to "decision time", the full, public DCC board meeting, at which JPO may have been present and in eye contact. Amazingly, the magistrate gave the two board members a retroactive absolution from their "guilt feelings", insisting that the meetings were legitimate and reassuring them that their meetings with Dr Pullicino Orlando were legitimately organised.

The citizen will experience a variety of emotions in the face of this judgment. "Respect" is the least likely one, however.