Saturday, 21st November 2009
Why the Mepa auditor will happily want to resign
The Mepa audit officer is an honourable man of integrity and it is because he is a man of integrity and great courage that he will have the courage and integrity to do what others of lesser stature will not do: he will happily offer his resignation in the coming days.
Let me explain
"Thou shalt not criticise the MEPA auditor" - the Church's KA
During the past week the Church's Kummissjoni Interdjocesana Ambjent (KA) and the Parliamentary Ombudsman released statement about the controversy taking place right now concerning the MEPA auditor. The differences between both statements are glaring. The Church's KA decreed a new commandment while the Ombudsman offered a balanced view.
The KA is one of the better initiatives emanating from the Diocesan Synod held a few years back. It has penned and authored several most interesting and intensely researched statements. I gladly recognise it as a very valid commission. However, as they say, even Homer nods sometimes. Thanks to its statement about the MEPA auditor, the Church's KA was not caught just nodding but it was heard snoring.
The Church's KA told us that:
"Il-KA tħoss li jkun żball kbir, kif ukoll nuqqas ta' maturità, li nikkritikaw lil dan l-uffiċċju tal-Awditur sempliċement għax dak li jgħid ma jdoqqx għal widnejna ... anki meta naħsbu li għandna xi raġun fuq xi punt legali. Meta jsir hekk inkunu mhux biss qed indgħajfu s-saħħa morali ta' dan l-istess uffiċċju, iżda nkunu qed nippromwovu kultura ta' omertà li ma tħallix li s-sewwa (għalkemm skomda) tissemma'."
I totally agree that anyone who criticises someone simply because what is said is not music to one's ears is showing immaturity. The Church's KA did not stop at that statement. They then decided to put one foot in their mouth and shoot themselves in the other foot. Re-read the second part of their statement; that part following the use of "widnejna".
Thou shalt not criticise the Mepa audit officer even if you think you are right on a point of law - consequently don't criticise the auditor even if he is wrong on a point of law! The law is an ass, isn't it, so what difference does being right or wrong on points of law make? Incredible!
Worse follows:
Thou shalt not criticise the Mepa auditor because by doing so you undermine the credibility of his office!
Wakey, wakey and smell the coffee KA members!
The audit officer criticised the court's decision on a point of law. The court said that the holding of certain meetings at MEPA was "perfectly legitimate." The audit officer says that the holding of these meetings is perfectly illegal. KA sees nothing wrong when the Law courts are criticised by another institution - the Audit office - but sees nothing but an abomination when the Audit office is criticised! Is the Auditor Office the holy of holies?
This is a funny situation indeed: one can criticise the Pope, the President of America, the Prime Minister, the Courts, the EU, the MEPA board, the bishop, unions, politicians, the Ecclesiastical Tribunals etc etc etc. Can we criticise everyone except the auditor and him we cannot criticise even when we think he is wrong on a point of law? Can the Church's KA please enlighten us?
The balanced Ombudsman
The statement of the Parliamentary Ombudsman is a breath of fresh air compared to the statement by the Church's KA. He criticised Mepa for saying that he had warned the auditor when he had "tendered advice" and not a warning. This advice was intentioned to, among other things, avoid a situation which could potentially prejudice the outcome before the Appeals Board.
This adivce was heeded by the auditor in 2006 but ignored in the present case. The auditor explained his reasons for ignoring the advice. However, the Ombudsman said that the advice is still valid to-day; an obvious though subtle criticism of the decision of the Mepa audit officer.
If one follows the new commandment of the Church's KA one could conclude that the Ombusdman was undermining the credibility of Auditor Office. If one follows the logic that is usually followed in any democratic society one would say that the Ombusdman was just exercising a right and a duty.
Why the Auditor will resign
Those who impute political motivations to the Mepa audit officer are mistaken. One can agree or disagree with the audit officer and one can even criticise him but the imputation of political motives is not credible.
The audit officer did not shy away from criticising the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Joseph Muscat, when he felt that such criticism was due. In his annual report for October 2007 till December 2008 the auditor criticised Dr Muscat for appointing Roderick Galdes MP on the Mepa board.
The audit officer expresed his belief that the appointment of Mr Galdes, who is also a MEPA employee, goes against the law. Dr Muscat frequently shows his support for the auditor but when the latter said something which was not music to his ears, Dr Muscat completely ignored the auditor. This incident says a lot both about De Muscat and the Mepa audit officer.
Should the audit officerresign because of the present controversy? I don't think so since controversy is part of the nature of such an office. Both the auditor and his critics have lessons to learn from what happened. Even the Prime Minister said that his criticism is not tantamount to a request for resignation. The possibility of resignation was only mentioned by the audit officer himself probably as an attempt to raise popular support.
However I believe that the audit officer's integrity and courage will move him to resign for a completely different reason. As part of the Mepa reform, the audit office will converge with the Ombudsman's office. This will add to the prestige and effectiveness of the office. I think that the Mepa audit officer's sense of integrity and courage will make him offer his resignation so that the new structures could have a completely fresh start if whoever is responsible wishes it. Quite naturally it should be possible for whoever would be responsible, to choose the present incumbent of the Mepa audit office or someone else.
This, I think, is the most credible way forward.
RSS
Comments
I find your invitation for him to resign while calling him courageous and a person of integrity sarcastic. Why should he resign if he has those time proven good qualities?
A Mr Musumeci and a certain Mr Calleja are two people who asked for his resignation. Prime Minister Gonzi also subtly blabbered something on radio in the same lines but he seems to have a change of heart. Dr Gonzi reportedly said that he would not be asking for his resignation, that means that the auditor did nothing wrong. Now you come along and wonder of wonders ask him to resign for the same reasons he should hold on to this hot seat: integrity and courage!
Hawwadni ha nifhmek!
in his swipe at ka, blogger tells us that quote Thou shalt not criticise the Mepa audit officer even if you think you are right on a point of law - consequently don't criticise the auditor even if he is wrong on a point of law! unquote exclamation mark and all...
now is it not very obvious that 'the auditor is wrong on a point of law' is not a consequence of ' i think that the auditor is wrong on a point of law'?
i find the conclusion as intriguing
quote I think that the Mepa audit officer...(should)... offer his resignation so that the new structures could have a completely fresh start if whoever is responsible wishes it.
my impression is that the popular call is for a fresh start in mepa not the audit office.
now what if changes will only happen at the audit office? and will 'whoever is responsible' decide also on who will be auditor? where are the checks and balances that seem to have worked to date under the present audit office?
How inappropriate of you to criticise the sentence of the Magistrate in question without reading the sentence. You just read a para or two that ws reported in the papers and rush to try and rubbish the courts. Once more:please get your facts correct before writing. Critise the Magistrate by all means but have the basic decency of criticising after researching.
2. The Ombudsman commands respect from everyone. This is crucial for such an office to remain effective in its work and to bring about change if and where there are failings.
Conversely, MEPA’s auditor has created a polarised situation. There is a large group of people who support him but there is also another group of people who do not have confidence in the auditor. This latter group is less likely to write to newspapers.
For an audit office, the inability to maintain credibility from all the stakeholders is a serious shortcoming. There are several reasons why the auditor has severely dented his credibility in the eyes of some. I could mention several mistakes in various reports and his excessively dogmatic declarations on legal matters when he is not legal person. I would also mention his unfair and heavy handed treatment of people who are giving a service as MEPA’s case officers and as DCC members – his allegations of collusion is a case in point
1. I would add a further criticism of the KA. In the Bahrija case, the auditor said that there may have been collusion. He tarnished the reputation of the DCC board members, the applicant and the architect without having any evidence to support the allegation. He made similar statements in other reports.
I believe it is morally and ethically unacceptable for a person to make allegations against another person without sustaining those allegations. This is especially so for a public officer such as the auditor, whose comments have wider implications than the specific report being commented upon. Throwing mud at people is an injustice and I would have expected the Church Commission to be the first to point this out.
continued/.....
Fr Borg I don't think you're naive, or uninformed.
So you are one of those who prefer to go by what is written in a law rather than the spirit in what it was intended to do? Was there any occasion where the court of appeal overturned a sentence by the magistrate's court?Can we trust the interpreters of our laws? So you would not raise an eyebrow if you knew that DCC board members were meeting developers in private meetings away from the public eye? Cosi` fan tutti said the magistrate so it must be ok you declare.
The Auditor is not being criticised , he's being attacked, even by you now. I find a lot of sarcasm in what you're writing here. Et tu brute?