The Department of Health has hit back at ophthalmologist Franco Mercieca’s claim he had objected to the irregular selection of a medical consultant.
We all agreed on the candidate
Dr Mercieca, a Labour Party election candidate, was one of four selection board members who chose an ineligible candidate.
Board members’ names were made public on Tuesday after protracted stalling by the Health Ministry, which had originally declined to release the names.
On Tuesday, Dr Mercieca said he raised the ineligibility of the candidate in question with board chairman Thomas Fenech, only to be told listed candidates had been already been vetted by the Public Service Commission. But the Department of Health stepped into the fray yesterday, noting all the board members had signed for and approved the ineligible candidate.
“There were no minority reports,” the department added.
Mr Fenech spoke similarly: “It was a collective decision, taken in full good faith. We all agreed on the candidate in question. Everyone signed the forms, nobody made any reports or walked out.
“Dr Mercieca is making it look as though we twisted his arm or forced him to agree to the candidate. That wasn’t the case at all.”
When contacted by The Times, Dr Mercieca reiterated his earlier stated position. “I raised the ineligibility issue, but once I was reassured by the chairman that it wasn’t our job to vet eligibility, I went along with the chairman and rest of the board, and approved the candidate in question – who was the best qualified from a medical point of view.”
The selection – with those of three other similarly ineligible candidates to other consultancy posts – was staunchly criticised by the Public Service Commission, which annulled all four.
Although all the ineligible candidates were fully qualified from a medical point of view, none were registered as specialists under Maltese law.
“We all knew from the outset that there were some eligibility issues with some candidates.
“But our job as a selection board is to determine the clinical eligibility of candidates, not to check whether they conform with all the various laws and procedures.
“That’s why candidates’ applications are first vetted by the PSC,” Mr Fenech argued.
Applications to consultancy vacancies first go through the PSC before being passed on to selection boards, he said.
“From a clinical point of view, the candidate we selected was the most qualified.
“It’s totally incorrect to imply that just because a candidate is not eligible due to specialist registration or some other such matter, he or she is not clinically qualified.”
The ineligible candidate’s clinical suitability, Mr Fenech continued, was confirmed by the selection board’s external examiner, a top UK-based ophthalmologist.
Having first surfaced in the PSC’s 2011 annual report, the botched selection procedure for all four consultancy posts has become a hot political potato.
The PL has pointed out one of the posts was set to be assumed by the son-in-law of Education Minister Dolores Cristina, and called for an investigation into the ministry’s initial reluctance to publish board members’ names.
The health ministry retaliated yesterday, insisting none of the selected candidates had assumed consultancy posts. It has clarified eligibility requirements and candidates are now awaiting interviews.