A National Audit Office report about the operations of a directorate responsible for road repair and maintenance in Gozo was far too kind when it said the organisation lacked good governance. Considering the shortcomings it brought to light, it would have been more correct to say the directorate had no sense of good governance at all.

It is inconceivable that a directorate within a government ministry can act so irresponsibly as to fail to even adopt basic operational norms. Particularly galling is that this has also happened under a government that undertook to ensure accountability. The administration is dismally failing to do so, not just in this case but in a number of others as well.

Before the publication of the report, the directorate was already operating under a cloud, as it were, after a works official – the husband of former Gozo minister Giovanna Debono – was charged with misappropriation of funds in what has come to be known as the works-for-votes scandal. The official denied the charges but the prosecution eventually led to Ms Debono’s resignation from the Nationalist Party, though she remained an independent member of Parliament.

Earlier this year, three senior Gozo ministry officials were suspended over irregularities in the award of tenders for road construction under both the Nationalist and Labour administrations. The Audit Office kept this case in mind but it produced the report nonetheless, even though it complains it was faced with significant limitations, mainly consisting in the inconsistent, fragmented and the late manner in which it received the information and documentation from the directorate.

The way the directorate handled or, rather, mishandled its work is shameful. Perhaps one of the most worrying aspects is that not all of the directorate’s procurement processes were covered by a formalised contract document.

The audit team said it found that, in numerous instances, the actual contract document, binding the government and the suppliers to their respective obligations, was not included. There were occasions when works started immediately after the issue of a letter of acceptance, without the signing of any official contract. A reason given for this was that the procurement unit within the directorate was still being set up. Could the directorate and the ministry be more amateur and incompetent than this?

The Audit Office did not mince words in its observations, saying the practice of not ensuring that a documented contract was in place to govern commissioned works and supply agreements was unacceptable because it created considerable risks to the value of the funds invested. The Audit Office also found a general lack of performance safeguards as well as overstaffing and lack of expertise.

Some of the employees were “untrainable” and the Auditor found that, notwithstanding the directorate’s assertion that it had no staff shortage, both the road section and the construction and maintenance unit had increased the number of workers.

It would seem that, besides an overhaul of its procedural practice, as suggested by the Audit Office, the directorate requires a root and branch reform of both its structure and responsibilities. Clearly, too, there was no political oversight to ensure correct operational standards.