Advert
Print
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 by

Bertrand Borg

Surgeon warns of foul play

PSC ‘knew about selection board issues’

Prof. Godfrey Laferla. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi

Prof. Godfrey Laferla. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi

A top surgeon who chaired three disbanded selection boards had warned the Public Service Commission of potential foul play in the selection processes for three medical consultancy posts.

We have been vilified and misrepresented

The PSC had previously said the boards were disbanded after members collectively disclaimed responsibility for having nominated ineligible candidates to the posts.

But the chair of all three boards, Godfrey Laferla, has told The Times that the boards only disclaimed responsibility after they discovered that one of the candidates interviewed could have potentially seen – and amend­ed – calls for applications before they were issued.

Prof. Laferla wrote to the PSC in June 2011 to warn them that a candidate his boards had interviewed also sat on the council of the Medical Association of Malta, which vetted the calls for applications before they were issued.

The calls were subsequently amended by the MAM “in a way that appeared to favour local candidates”, Prof Laferla claimed.

This was strenuously denied by MAM president Martin Balzan, who insisted the calls had not been amended.

“Calls for applications are public documents – the eligibility criteria for all posts are the same for all EU citizens. The calls were approved by the MAM council, in which the candidate in question played a very minor role,” Dr Balzan said when contacted.

Prof. Laferla said that although the candidate who sat on the MAM council had not succeeded in getting any of the consultancy posts, concerns about potential irregularities had cast a shadow over the process in the boards’ minds.

“The boards, having this information, cannot and will not bear responsibility for potential injustices. The boards are therefore not prepared to sanction... any outcomes related to these matters and are therefore withdrawing all of their signatures from the respective reports,” Prof. Laferla told the PSC in the letter, dated June 16, 2011.

“It was another candidate who brought the issue to my attention. By then, we had already carried out the selection process.

“I immediately met with the PSC and the Health Department’s director-general, who admitted that he had passed the call for applications to the president of MAM before issuing them,” Prof. Laferla told The Times.

The prominent surgeon was eager to set the record straight.

“We withdrew our signatures not because the PSC queried the final selections, but because we discovered this very clear potential conflict of interest by one of the candidates.

“I and fellow board members have been vilified and misrepresented. The PSC has made it look as though we disclaimed responsibility out of some sense of cowardice, when in fact we were the ones who first flagged this issue.”

A PSC spokesman declined to discuss Prof. Laferla’s claims, saying simply that the Commission stood by its report, decisions and statements concerning the eligibility of candidates to consultancy posts.

The Health Ministry confirmed calls for applications in question had been discussed with the MAM before they were issued to ensure they were in line with union agreements.

Neither of the two said whether any procedures had been amended to prevent any future such conflicts of interest from arising.

Prof. Laferla’s selection boards, as well as one chaired by ophthalmologist Thomas Fenech, were staunchly criticised by the PSC for having nominated ineligible candidates for consultancy posts.

The PSC was prompted to investigate when the MAM complained about the outcome of their selection boards.

“There were some 30 consultancy posts up for grabs last year, and none of the other selection boards had any problem interpreting candidates’ eligibility,” Dr Balzan remarked.

Both Prof. Laferla and Mr Fenech have insisted the ineligible candidates were the most clinically qualified and were picked in good faith, with their ineligibility hinging on administrative, rather than clinical, issues.

The PSC has said that it is the selection boards’ job, not theirs, to vet candidates’ administrative eligibility – something that left Mr Fenech incredulous.

“The current system puts us in a very uncomfortable situation. What if I disqualify a candidate on administrative grounds incorrectly? Who carries the can for that?”

Prof. Laferla pointed out he had asked the PSC for help in assessing the administrative eligibility of candidates in November 2010.

“A human resources expert from the health department was assigned to us to help, but even then we had problems working through the eligibility clauses,” he said.

Mr Fenech argued that it would make more sense for the PSC to assume responsibility for vetting administrative eligibility.

“Right now, we decide everything, even though we’re only qualified to assess someone’s clinical ability. The PSC are the administrative experts. We’re the medical experts. It would be more efficient, not to mention transparent, if we split responsibility according to our competences.”

Splitting responsibility would have prevented such mix-ups from ever occurring, Mr Fenech went on to say.

“It’s not been a pleasant experience. I’ve cleared the air with all the other board members, and I can hand-on-heart say that we did nothing wrong. The candidate we selected was the best from a medical point of view. We acted in good faith.”

Print
Advert

38 Comments

Post comment

Please see our new Comments Policy

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

For more details please see our Comments Policy

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

Eddy Privitera

Aug 15th 2012, 16:20

G. Buhagiar: dan il-ministru tas-sahha QATT ma jkun jaf xejn meta xi haga tkun saret hazina, jew tunten pesti !

J Cauchi

Aug 15th 2012, 17:17

Yes, I totally agree with you. An independent inquiry should be held to excamine not only this case, but how consultants were appointed dduring the last 2 or 3 years. It would be worth reading. I have reason to believe that a number of consultants were appointed not on merit and qualifications, but on other factors that go beyond that. Dr Joseph Muscat leader of the opposition shyould not take this matter lightly. One of the PL's promises should be the set up of an independant board of inquiry to investigate this issue, with retrospective date and THOSE RESPONSIBLE SHOULD SHOULDER THE CONSEQUENCES

J Cauchi

Aug 15th 2012, 17:30

Naqbel perfettament ma Dr Melvyn Mifsud. Ghandu jitwaqqafr Bord ta Inkjesta indipendenti biex tinvestiga dan il-kaz. Mhux dan biss. Imma ghandha tinvestiga kif gew mahtura l-consultants u ohrajn f'dawn l-ahhar ftit snin. Wara kull gjhazla kien hemm sorprizi; uhud kbar u kbar hafna. Naf b'kazi fejn hadd ma ried jemmen kif saru xi whud filwaqt li ohrajn inqabzu jew gew lurt b'kemm ma jintaghzlux. Smajt b'kazi fejn igubulek ghajnejk wara widnejk. Il-hatriet ta consultants u ohrajn,numru minnhom ma sarux fuq il-meritu u l-kwalifiki, imma fuq affarijiet ohra li jmorru 'l hemm mill-mertu u l-kwalifiki. Dan il-kaz li qed jitkellem dwaru l-Professur Laferla huwa kaz serju hafna; anzi, huwa abbuz serjissimu. Mhux se nghid lil Ministru tas-sahha biex jirrizenja. Dan inkun qed naghmlu ghalxejn. Qed naghmel appell f'isem il-gustizzja, f''isem is-serjeta u f'isem dawk li nqabzu jew li gew diskriminati, lil Dr Joseph Muscat, Kap tal-Oppozizzjoni li wahda mill-weghdi ghall-elezzjoni generali tkun it-twaqqif ta Bord ta Inkjesta biex jinvestiga kif saru hatriet ta Consultants u ohrajn konnessi f'dawn l-ahhar snin. Dawk responsabbli jridu jerfghu r-responsabbilta ta ghemilhom. Altrimenti nkunu qed naghzqu fl-ilma.

Barney Camilleri

Aug 15th 2012, 13:10

Paul Cassar
Yes Sir, Paul, that is what I am doing, just beholding and it is Lord and Behold!
But, with hand on chest do you believe we will be any better with Joseph? he is still in opposition and they are already arguing internally for position.
Will not vote this time round!

VINCENT WILLIAMS

Aug 15th 2012, 17:20

@ Barney Camilleri.

Yes we will be better under Joseph Muscat. That is why thousands of ex-PN supporters are going to vote Labour and more PN supporters are not going to vote. To get rid of GonziPartitNegattiv and the PN (Partit Negattiv) administration. The wind of change is being felt even amongst thousands of PN supporters and within the PN Party as well. Not to mention that such a change is also being felt in the PN's clubs.

Paul Cassar

Aug 15th 2012, 12:13

Patrick what you said makes sense ........................BUT NOT....................... if you read well what Mr. Laferla said.

Charles Grixti

Aug 15th 2012, 13:53

This is not just a Malta phenomenon. Most Media corporations in the world are there to convey the one message or the official message of the Regime, i.e. supposedly democratic countries on the surface but when examine are totalitarian in scope and action. It is very effectively used to manipulate and control public opinion and to divert the public with banal entertainment and sports, thus allowing the Regime free hand to do its job of divesting the lower classes and enriching the upper classes and themselves in the process. This is no secret at all for if you read the slim book by Edward Bernayse, one of the greatest PR man who was sought by and advised Presidents as well as Corporations - "Propaganda" during his long career, you will find that there indeed is a conspiracy, has been for a long time, to control the masses and subject them to the will and use by the those in control of the mass Media.

Patrick Zammit

Aug 15th 2012, 13:13

Paul Cassar

It is not a question of what makes sense or not. I only quoted from the PSC's website which anybody can access. It puts the responsibility of eligibility in the hands of the Selection Board. This means that a Selection Board cannot ignore eligibility.

Having said that, I did not really get your point.

Barney Camilleri

Aug 15th 2012, 13:12

Leo Said
It is very obvious, down memory lane.

Advert

Similar Stories

Popular Stories

  1. Update 3: Marsa murder - Police looking...

  2. Update 2: Three arrests after flamingo...

  3. Former Judge Ray Pace found dead

  4. Where’s Everybody staff is given notice

  5. Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...

  6. Update 4 - Eddie Fenech Adami stable...

  7. Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...

  8. Updated - Two bodies, capsized boat,...

  9. Franco Mercieca doing routine eye ops at...

In Discussion

  1. Update 2: Three arrests after flamingo...

  2. Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...

  3. Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...

  4. Chinese company to study Malta-Gozo...

  5. Updated - PM reacts to Labour anger on...

  6. Franco Mercieca doing routine eye ops at...

  7. No appeals board for first part of power...

  8. Updated - PM comments as Franco Mercieca...

  9. BBC site highlights illegal hunting in Malta

Advert

Copyright © Allied Newspapers Ltd., printed on - 20-06-2013 - Printed content is for personal use only, and should not be distributed