In May, with the usual fanfare, the Labour government announced the creation of the Local Enforcement Systems Agency (LESA). In the name of simplification of bureaucracy, another bureaucratic entity was created.
When the local enforcement system was first set up in February of 2000,the administration handling the system for the collection of fines was initially placed at a local council level and subsequently within five regions. A private company was contracted to train and employ wardens which were assigned to our localities.
When Jose Herrera was responsible for local councils he issued a White Paper proposing to set up a centralised government unit to replace the private company entrusted with the employment of wardens. The crucial issue of surplus funds was spelled out whereby it was stated that the funds would be distributed equally among the five regional committees.
That was February 2014, but as happened in other policy areas, Labour’s roadmap on wardens took a detour, or rather a U-turn.
Sliema is at present the only locality prohibited from implementing a residents’ timed-parking scheme
In 2015, a legal notice created the agency, and lo and behold, the private company is still operating. The replacement turned out to be a duplication. The agency took on the functions of the management committee with one fundamental change.
There is no representation of the Local Councils Association or the regions. The new advisory board was only to be composed of members appointed by the minister. Subsidiarity was thrown out of the window as was good governance.
The remuneration of the members of the advisory board was not to be determined by the Finance Ministry or some external body, but by the agency itself.
Why have checks and balances when the whole point is to place all the power of a supposedly local system in the hands of a minister?
In January we had the announcement of the first 100 days of the LESA operations. While apologising for pouringcold water on all this jubilation, it istime to ask questions on the serious matter of the surplus funds, which is shrouded in secrecy.
Article 3 (c) of LN 153 of 2015 states clearly that the agency shall be responsible for the apportioning between the local councils constituting the regional committees any net surpluses resulting from enforcement operations in accordance with a formula established by agreement following consultations.
We have reached the 200 days of LESA operations, yet during a meeting I attended between the Central Regional Committee and the CEO of the agency, ex-police commissioner Ray Zammit, we were told that a decision on what happens to these surplus funds, which run into hundreds of thousands of euros, is yet to be taken.
Somewhere along the line of twisted logical decision-making, whichsimplifies bureaucracy by creating yet another bureaucratic body, the powers that be forgot to deal with the issue ofthe substantial amounts generated through fines.
To borrow a phrase used by Nationalist Party leader Simon Busuttil, it is not normal to amend laws of systems handling hundreds of thousands of euros and, six months after a reform comes about, have no system in place for the distributionof funds which should be directed at public projects in a transparent, non-arbitrary manner.
I still see no justification for the centralisation of local enforcement of littering laws or traffic contraventions. Would the staff of a central agency know which streets require a speed camera or which streets are notorious for littering and placing of garbage outside collection hours? Such matters are best determined by local councils as they are at the receiving end of complaints.
The Nationalist Opposition had outlined a very practical proposal which consisted of wardens assigned directly to local councils, who would direct them to where the hotspots for enforcement are and would benefit directly from the fines.
Instead, the government has added an entire agency’s staff overheads to a system which had an exaggerated number of levels of decision-making.
The PN also requested that more emphasis is placed on having plainclothes wardens, or green wardens, to step up enforcement of environmental laws. Some weeks ago I was informed that following Labour’s reform there are only three green wardens for the whole of Malta.
One other change which may have triggered the 100 days euphoria is that the wardens are no longer ‘wardens’ but now named ‘local community officials’. I guess many a reader missed this important bit of news.
Parliamentary Secretary Stefan Buontempo said he wishes to see uniformity in the way fines are dished out. I fail to see how this would benefit our communities. Under the previous decentralised system, councils could request the wardens to be reasonable when it comes to fining cars partially parked on a double yellow line after 8pm, this in view of a need to be practical and alleviate the parking problem for residents. Now thanks to the uniformity, the community officials will be dishing out fines at night too.
It is worth requesting uniformity when it comes to resident parking schemesas there is a lack of consistency bet-ween Buontempo and Transport Minister Joe Mizzi.
Sliema is at present the only locality prohibited from implementing a residents’ timed-parking scheme. Such a scheme was introduced by the council in 2013 in line with legislation, but Mizzi excluded Sliema from the law and left St Julian’s, Birgu and all the other localities – uniformity par excellence.
Secrecy has permeated all areas of this government’s policymaking, from energy to public transport and now it seems that even the surplus funds of the ‘local’ warden system have not been spared.
Paul Radmilli is a PN Sliema local councillor.