Mepa has sharply rebuked its audit officer, I read on line.

Reading the comments later, I saw that I was not the only one astounded by that statement.

Mepa’s arrogance is renowned but this is taking it too far. It obviously wants to be rid of the nuisance of being monitored. Then it could do what it jolly well pleases like everyone else seems to be doing.

Institutions that ride roughshod over whoever challenges them and do not protect our environment do not deserve respect.

It is not Mepa’s place to rebuke its auditor. An auditor’s report is an independent assessment of the fairness by which a company conducts its business. It is done to examine in detail if there is accuracy in information, verify the effectiveness of the organisation and provide an assessment of a system’s internal control.

An auditor is appointed because s/he is seen as independent, objective and qualified to do the job.

The Prime Minster started this particular slide down the slippery slope when he said in a radio interview last Sunday that a milestone was reached when the Magistrates’ Court declared that there was nothing wrong in meetings between developers and Mepa planning officers.

He might think that, just like he thought there was nothing wrong and there was no conflict of interest that the beleaguered Finance Minister, Tonio Fenech, went on a jaunt with leading businessmen, but many people do not.

While acknowledging the audit officer’s important role, the Prime Minster said he regretted comments, which questioned a decision of the court. One should respect the institutions, he said.

We are regressing fast. If the auditor’s role is important is it wise to undermine it? Does the Prime Minster think that the courts are infallible now? Or is it just when the judgments suit the government? Since when are the courts above reproach? The timing of such comments could not have come at a worse time with an ex chief justice in the dock.

“Persons who were not lawyers could be given advice before they put pen to paper, because everything that was said had legal, moral and ethical implications,” said the Prime Minster, adding that the government and a House Select Committee were considering a proposal made by the Ombudsman for officers who have a role such as the audit officer to fall within its aegis.

I stand to be corrected, but if my memory serves me right, had not Mepa come under the Ombudsman’s office before a Mepa auditor was appointed.

Anyway, not all lawyers are shining examples of integrity on moral and ethical issues. If we all had to seek legal advice before putting pen to paper, God help us, because very little would see the light of day.

Besides, the Prime Minster had no problem criticising the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg over the crucifix in the Italian state school classrooms case. Should we not respect that institution? Couldn’t he see the irony in his statement?

The court case in question related to the notorious Mistra open-air disco application. The one where we had Jeffrey Pullicino Orland, a lawyer, posing as a journalist and crying crocodile tears in its aftermath.

Joe Falzon, Mepa’s auditor did not agree with the court’s ruling that meetings between planning officers and developers were normal practice, as indicated by the magistrate, calling such meetings illegal.

According to the report, the two men facing the charges expressed uncertainty as to whether such meetings should have taken place, but the magistrate noted that such meetings constituted normal practice by the complaints and liaison department and were meant to iron out issues between the planning authority officers and developers.

So a magistrate is more au fait with Mepa normal practice than its auditor, even when the authority’s own employees are not clear on what constitutes normal practice.

It is normal practice for judges to call on expert advice when the subject matter falls beyond their realm; this does not seem to have occurred in this case.

It would have also been instructive had the magistrate expanded on what he regarded as “to iron out issues”.

In closed meetings, Mr Falzon argued, board members can compromise themselves because they will only be meeting the applicant to the exclusion of objectors and other interested parties.

The law does not contemplate any meetings between applicants and DCC members and proceedings have to be held in public.

Yet, we all know how averse to public consultation Mepa has always been. It might sometimes allow a very small percentage of the public to attend a meeting, but contributing is another story.

Commenting online, Andrew Calleja, who I believe is the previous Mepa chairman, had this to say in response to the many comments defending the auditor’s reports.

“The MEPA Board has been assigned the remit of approving and interpreting policy. The +VE spirit of the policy is an utopist term. It depends on one’s point of view and is very open to interpretation.

“Ok, let’s scrap the system. Who do you think should decide? The NGO, auditor, objector, applicant, planner, ecologist, industrialist, farmer, economist, government, Opposition, who? The end results would be very subjective and varied, creating a great deal of uncertainty in the process… No planning system can survive in that scenario,” said Mr Calleja.

I have no idea what the + VE spirit of the policy is, but I assume it has to do with being open to public consultation, which the previous Mepa chairman (I am assuming it is he) sees as utopian.

This kind of attitude just further highlights the arrogance at Mepa. The Board is assigned the remit of approving and interpreting policy just as the auditor is assigned to ensure the Board approves and interprets it correctly.

It is not a matter of who decides, but that whoever is responsible for taking decisions is seen to be listening and taking note of objections. Yes, it is laborious and complicated, but better that than have our environment in the mess it is in.

“I do not know when the practice of one-on-one meetings started. I had been chairman of the DCC board for six years and I never had any one-on-one meetings with developers and objectors. I believe it is illegal because planning law says DCC meetings have to be held in public,” said Mr Falzon.

“My concerns about the legality of private meetings were forwarded to DCC board members and I am informed that DCC board members have stopped this practice,” he added.

The Prime Minster opined that we cannot have such statements (the auditor criticising a judgment), which could hinder Mepa as it seeks to facilitate the development process in a way which is fair, transparent and according to the rules.

Is he so out of touch not to realise that the majority of the population feel that Mepa does not operate in a fair and transparent way, not to mention according to the rules?

In fact, he did have a clear idea of the public pulse on the issue before the last election. That was why he promised the reform of Mepa and that he would be overseeing it.

But the Prime Minster seems to have forgotten why he promised the reforms.

He has instead reinforced Mepa’s arrogance as shown in the latter’s press release on Thursday afternoon. The authority said that its audit officer should never have carried out an investigation and published a report about the permit for a development at Qala Ridge in Gozo, because the case was still before the Appeals Board.

Mepa referred to the Prime Minster’s criticism of the auditor last Sunday and added, “The Ombudsman had, in the past, already warned the Auditor not to investigate planning cases that were sub-judice.”

What is interesting is that, according to comments in response on line, although the case is sub judice the developer has already started building.

“The same is happening with the Nadur cemetery, it is under appeal and in the meantime the cemetery is almost complete,” said one comment.

As Joseph Ellis rightly opined, “the authority’s statement that the auditor should not investigate permits that are under appeal would make sense if a permit were to be put on hold once it is under appeal.”

“However, in Malta even if the permit is under appeal, building work does not stop. One expected the proposed reforms to tackle this deficiency in our planning law, but they do not.”

The Mepa auditor was asked to investigate the granting of a permit for the redevelopment of a restaurant overlooking the valley at Qala Ridge by nine environment NGOs including Din l-Art Helwa, Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar, the Ramblers’ Association and Nature Trust.

In its response to the report, Mepa rambles on and on about storeys, basements, photomontages, plans and elevations, yet it misses the whole point that the building is going to ruin the existing belvedere, which is the crux of the matter.

Mr Falzon said that a controversial development had been approved which was likely to have an adverse effect on an area of high landscape value.

He said the main fault was with the person who prepared the local plan for the area and those who approved it.

“But the DCC is also at fault. These are the situations where professional discretion is important. The Planning Directorate had given a recommendation for refusal listing five reasons for this. The reasons given for overturning the recommendation answers the objections of the Planning Directorate at best only in part and ignores completely the sensitivity of the site,” Mr Falzon said.

He said Mepa should take measures to ensure that areas of high landscape value or high architectural value are suitably protected, irrespective of any Local Plans or other policies.

It should be made clear that the protection of such areas is paramount and should take precedence over any other policy which conflicts with this basic requirement.

But if Mr Falzon continues to be undermined and his words are not heeded, the ruination of our heritage and environment will continue unabated with the blessing of the people who have been given the responsibility to guard it.

Chivalry is not dead

I am afraid, I shall now have to bore you with a personal anecdote that has no relevance whatsoever to the previous item.

But we hear so many negative reports about today’s youth that I felt I had to counter the general assumption that the young today are all selfish, bad-mannered louts.

Two young men, Roderick Attard and Eric Pace, complete strangers, came to my rescue when I was locked out a few days ago.

The wind had slammed my flat door leaving me utterly stranded in the stairwell. As I was standing at the front door of the apartment building with no mobile phone and no car keys, the two young men happened to be passing by in a van with a ladder on its roof.

They not only stopped when I waved them down, but they actually came up on my roof (the door to that was thankfully open) and when they realised the ladder was too big to be brought up to the roof, Roderick jumped on to my balcony (I am on the top floor and the door to the balcony was open) and let me in. They did not hang about and I just about had time to thank them and ask them their names, but giving them recognition is the least I can do.

[email protected]