Following the allocation of Mepa under the portfolio of OPM, the Prime Minister appointed a new executive chairman in June 2008. Mepa is responsible for two main areas which together have a major impact on our quality of life. Directing policy in these two areas requires the mandate and vision of structures which are core to the government. In addition, a strong executive arm, within the authority, is needed to implement such policy on the ground and ensure that the whole of Mepa's operations follow the government direction in a consistent manner faithful to the policy direction put forward. The chairman's role is considered to be even more critical at this point in time to secure the successful implementation of this reform.
The magnitude and breadth of Mepa's operations are deemed to require both a full-time, non-executive chairman and a CEO. While the chairman encapsulates the persona of the board, which is responsible for the setting of the organisation's strategic direction, the CEO is tasked with ensuring that the board's direction is fulfilled. The role of a CEO represents a crucial support structure to the chairperson and lies on a more operational level. The CEO is empowered to make decisions and manage operational problems which may arise within or among directorates.
At present, Mepa does not have a CEO to oversee the running of the whole of Mepa's operations. Although the director-general's office was initially set up to fulfil this function, this failed to materialise. The current situation may lead to a disaggregation of coherence in decision-making and the lack of appropriate coordination among the various directorates. The position of a CEO is deemed as more suited to fulfil this function as it would oversee the workings of all directorates - planning, environment protection, corporate services and any other directorate which may be set up as a result of this reform. Hence, as part of the reform in structures, it is proposed that the director-general's function be suppressed and replaced by a CEO position.
In the light of the sensitivity of the ongoing reform within Mepa, it is deemed appropriate for Mepa to have a very strong executive arm in order to manage the implementation of the measures included in this reform. This is seen to take the form of an executive chairperson who could bring together the decision-making and implementation processes so as to ensure that the government policy is being effectively implemented. For this purpose, the immediate recruitment of a chief operations officer (COO) is deemed necessary to support the chairman in the discharge of his operational-related duties, allowing him, for the time being, to focus in a more wholesome manner on instilling the changes that need to happen within Mepa. Notwithstanding that the chairman would maintain exclusive responsibility for the execution of this reform, the COO would assist the chairman throughout the reform phase, particularly with those measures that are of a more operational nature. The COO position would be transitory, developing into a CEO position over time after the conclusion of the reform process. This would permit the new CEO to have had the hindsight and participation in all of the reform process, thereby permitting a sound launching pad for his mandate.
Once the reform is successfully completed, the Mepa chairman will return to being a non-executive one.
Development control commissions
Mepa has been operating with three part-time DCCs, each assigned specific types of development applications. DCCs shoulder an integral part of the development application process both in terms of workload - in 2008 the three DCCs processed over 6,000 cases - and particularly in terms of their critical role. The DCCs are often regarded as the "face" of the authority for it is they who have to face the applicants, architects and objectors of around 6,000 applications, which makes their potential interaction with the public quite wide.
Criticism has often been levied at the potential conflict of interest that can arise between practising architects sitting on the commissions and their private work. Moreover, their non-permanent role can often lead to some absences and a limitation of the amount of time available for decision-making. The government feels that in view of the DCCs' role in the development application process, members on DCCs should be ring-fenced to serve solely Mepa and operate on a full-time basis.
This decision, which should not be construed as an indication of wrongdoing by the part-time DCC members, is also in line with the proposals Mepa put forward in its reform document published in June 2008 and other consultees. Such positions would hold the status of full-time Mepa employees with a salary that needs to be of a level that can attract valid people into such positions, thereby relinquishing their professional practice. Furthermore, it is envisaged that operating on a full-time basis will enable DCCs to conduct site visits which have suffered a decline over the past years in view of the lack of time available. This will permit a more holistic contextualisation of an application within the context of the existing built environment.
As outlined earlier, the government intends to set up two full-time DCCs each composed of a chairman and two members. This measure is conducive both to enhanced consistency in decision-making and to higher efficiency in the processing of applications.