Forget for a moment the technicality that the post of auditor of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority will soon be migrating to the Ombudsman's Office. The point at issue is whether, irrespective of such a move, is it time to do without such a function at all.

The suggestion is not mine but that of the incumbent head of the audit office himself when filing his departmental report for the recently-published Mepa annual report for 2009.

Evidently flustered at the way his efforts are being apparently and constantly frustrated and allegedly undermined, architect Joe Falzon makes some startling claims: That every effort is made by Mepa to try and prove that the audit office is wrong. That this leads him to conclude that Mepa expects the audit office simply to applaud its actions, whatever they are. That an audit office of this type is of no use whatsoever. And that he would have expected that Mepa would welcome the initiatives taken by the audit office and see them as a means of improving its performance.

But perhaps the most damning statement throughout the entire Mepa auditor report is made when Mr Falzon says: "If this negative attitude continues, the proposed Mepa reform might as well consider abolishing the post of audit officer as it would be irrelevant."

As we have argued all along during the second reading and committee stage of the Mepa Reform Bill debate in the House, the head of the audit office makes the claim that "unless consistent decisions based on sound planning policies are taken on development issues then no reform can be effective".

He even contends that "all those involved in the planning process should be held fully accountable to ensure that this aim is achieved". And he adds that "those who are unable to justify their decisions have no role in the planning process".

The Mepa auditor takes exception to a court report in the press which quoted a former DCC chairman as saying that it was normal practice for DCC members to meet developers in private. The auditor considered this to be a very serious matter, running counter to the provisions of the Development Planning Act which requires that the consideration of planning applications by the DCC (or the Mepa board when applicable) has to be held in meetings open to the public. He immediately communicated to the Mepa chairman his concern of this irregular practice.

What frustrated the auditor even more was that, although the court had found the former DCC board members not guilty of the crimes with which they were charged, Mepa - in his opinion wrongly - interpreted a comment made by the magistrate as indicating that this practice was perfectly legitimate. The auditor disagreed, in his own words, with the interpretation as, according to him, the magistrate had clearly indicated on pages 13 and 14 of the court sentence that she was not considering whether the procedures adopted by Mepa in the assessment of planning applications were within the provisions of the Development Planning Act or not but simply whether the prosecution proved that the accused were guilty of the charges brought forward.

The auditor report merits attentive reading because it seriously casts doubts on how much Mepa really wants to give full independence to and beef up the role of the auditor after having discarded and dismissed many of his past recommendations with almost monotonous regularity.

While agreeing that the Office of the Ombudsman may be the long-term solution to the problem, as things stand - according to the auditor himself - the audit office cannot investigate cases on its own initiative although there is an obvious need for such action.

When speaking of the media coverage given to a number of cases investigated by the Mepa audit office, the auditor concludes that the considerable response from the public to media reports clearly indicates that the vast majority of correspondents are clearly not satisfied with the planning process as administered by Mepa.

One strong recommendation by the auditor is that it is essential that newly-appointed professional officers are properly trained and guided and an assessment of their performance carried out regularly, adding that "A person who fails to reach the required standard should not be allowed to continue with his or her work".

Although all case officers' reports are endorsed by the team manager, in his considered opinion this is a very important aspect of the whole process, especially where case officers with limited experience are involved. Even though this is possibly the most important part of the learning process for them, all indications are, according to the auditor, that this is considered as a marginal exercise and that some of the team managers seem to endorse reports without carefully considering their contents and implications.

Mr Falzon makes the point that whenever the DCC does not agree with the recommendation of the Director of Planning it is entitled to overturn it, provided they have valid planning reasons in terms of article 13(5) of the Development Planning Act. And, yet, unfortunately it is not a rare occurrence for a DCC to overturn a recommendation without having a planning justification for such overturning.

The auditor is at his strongest when commenting on compliance with policies - or lack of it!

According to the auditor, case officers and the DCC board are often reluctant to apply their discretion where policies of a generic nature allow them to do so and all too willing to amend very precise and prescriptive requirements in other instances, which should in no way allow any discretionary decisions.

If all this sounds so familiar, I do not blame you. The Mepa auditor has been making such complaints ad nauseam in many a past annual report.

www.leobrincat.com

brincat.leo@gmail.com

Mr Brincat is shadow minister for the environment, sustainable development and climate change.