I have been the subject of a number of personal allegations concerning the decision taken by the court to acquit two accused persons in the Mistra case. Permit me to make some comments.
1. At no time did I criticise the decision of the magistrate (as was reported erroneously in The Times on November 2). The magistrate was deciding on the charge that two former members of the Development Control Commission were in some way criminally responsible for what happened. She was not considering the planning process and the way it was carried out. She simply made a statement of fact: it had become normal practice, according to the testimony of architect Paul Borg (himself a former DCC chairman), for the applicants to have meetings with DCC board members in private.
When I read the testimony given by Mr Borg, I immediately wrote to the Mepa chairman where I clearly told him that during my period as DCC chairman I never had any private meetings with applicants or objectors except during the formal DCC meetings. I also pointed out that this practice is illegal and should be stopped forthwith. I wanted to make my letter to the chairman public but the chairman advised against it. For the sake of good relations, I decided to follow his advice.
Incidentally, the letter was written following legal advice. The advice that I was given was that my interpretation of the law was correct.
2. Robert Musumeci said that Mepa case officers should have meetings with applicants to discuss their planning applicants. This is correct. In fact, the Planning Directorate has a duty to hold pre- and post-submission meetings when requested with developers, objectors, etc. My only criticism in this respect was that, in respect of most of these meetings, minutes or other records are not kept. It is the decision-making bodies (the Mepa board and DCC) that can discuss planning applications only in meetings open to the public.
3. There were a number of comments by Andrew Calleja, former Mepa chairman, who tried to shame me to admit that, during my period as deputy chairman of Mepa, the Mepa board used to meet behind closed doors to have a preliminary discussion on pending applications, which were to be decided by the Mepa board itself. This is completely true. I had on a number of occasions pointed this out to Mr Calleja personally.
At the time I was deputy chairman, which, as in the case of most deputies, was generally a superfluous post except for ensuring a quorum, I relied on the discretion of the chairman. It was simply never pointed out to me by anybody that this practice was completely illegal. When I became audit officer, I decided, for obvious reasons, to study in some detail the Development Planning Act and, after discussing the relevant section with a colleague, I had come to the conclusion that the practice was illegal. It was illegal when I was deputy chairman and it still is! The difference is that, now, it has been pointed out to Mepa on several occasions but the practice still continues.
4. Mr Calleja, when Mepa chairman, kept insisting that I take legal advice on a number of matters. When it was appropriate to do so, I sought legal advice and, in general, I was proven right.
On several occasions, Mr Calleja kept insisting that when I received complaints from the public, I should not send a copy of the conclusions of the investigation to the complainants. He did not seem to understand that the planning process is exposed to public scrutiny. As he kept insisting, I sought legal advice from the Ombudsman himself. In a detailed report, the Ombudsman proved me right and agreed fully with my practice. (Incidentally, when I took office as Mepa audit officer I had prepared a system of procedure for the office with the advice and concurrence of the Ombudsman.)
5. Mr Calleja made several derogatory remarks about my work as audit officer. While, in general, I leave his remarks to the judgment of readers, I think it opportune to remind Mr Calleja of the comments he had made when I indicated to him my intention of following closely the legal provisions of the Development Planning Act in section 17C (7), that I take instructions from no person: "X'daħħalna hawn ġew!" (What have we got here!). Maybe Mr Calleja is not used to carrying out his work without taking instructions, even as chairman of an autonomous institution such as the Mepa!
6. The fact that there are no registered objectors for an application is completely irrelevant. The planning process aims at creating a better quality of life for the whole community, which, therefore, has the right to participate fully in the whole process. By holding meetings with developers where the public is excluded this right is being compromised.
7. As to the remarks by Dr Pullicino Orlando, I never investigated his actions. My remit is limited to investigating the operations of Mepa. In the Mistra case I had a request from the Prime Minister and from Dr Pullicino Orlando himself to investigate the matter. I did so to the best of my abilities. If my conclusions did not please everybody, it is no fault of mine. I have nothing to be ashamed of.
8. I have also been taken to task on with regard to the Mistra application approved by the DCC when I was its chairman. I have already commented on this fact. Basically, this was an existing building located next to the bay and which the owner wanted to use as a restaurant. The DCC board felt that the use was appropriate and the environmental impact would be minimal. We were proved right: most people hardly know of the development as approved. Incidentally, the present policies did not apply at the time.
9 One final remark on the job description of the complaints officer, Mr Vassallo. Mr Musumeci reproduced a full copy of this job description (I never knew that this information is so easily accessible!). I make it clear that I believe that the duties of the liaison officer, insofar as they involve participating in or organising meetings between the DCC members and applicants, is in conflict with the Development Planning Act. If his job is simply to facilitate negotiation processes between Mepa and applicants (that is, by organising pre- and post-submission meetings with the directorate), then it is another matter altogether. Any contentious issues should be ironed out during meetings open to the public if DCC members are involved. In the Mistra case, contentious issues were very well ironed out, possibly with a steam roller; even the provisions of the law were conveniently forgotten and flattened out.
Mr Falzon is auditor officer of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority.