I wish to point out that the report entitled ‘Spaceships on the ridge’ (TMID, 18 May) concerning the Mepa board meeting of the day before, contains certain inaccuracies that I wish to correct.

Firstly, the vote in favour was not unanimous as reported. I never saw Judge Bonello raise his hand in favour because it is his declared principle that he never approves of any “fait accompli” (sanctioning). This can easily be verified with him.

The article also failed to point out that I started my intervention by asking confirmation from the deputy chairman that the application under discussion was for “sanctioning” works carried out without permission, to which he replied that no sanctioning was involved. He was duly corrected by the Mepa officers in attendance. It is very significant that the gentleman chairing such a prominent meeting did not have full grasp of what exactly was being discussed after almost two hours. Now that was worth reporting!

What concerns me more than the inexact reporting is that your correspondent only quotes part of what I said. Writing that I “rounded on Architect Spiteri and claimed this architect has a history of such developments” is incorrect and incomplete. The article failed to report that I was quoting from the Mepa Auditor’s report; and it failed to inform that it was only the developer’s lawyer who “caused a huge outcry” when I tried to quote from the Audit report, following which Perit Franco Montesin, the Deputy Chairman, in his wisdom, would not permit me to read, saying that I was out of order. This is unfair reporting because I distinctly waved the Mepa Audit report which I was about to quote, since it was highly relevant to the case being discussed. So the impression given by the report that I was the cause of the “ugly” incident is incorrect because I never raised my voice nor addressed any other but the chair respectfully. I could be blamed for the incident being “brief” because I civilly respected the Chair and did not persist with quoting the pertinent paragraph from the Mepa Auditor Report.

In the melee purposely created by those whose interest was to disturb the hard facts of relevance, I never heard architect Spiteri say that I had asked him to apply for a sanction on my behalf. It is a fact that through his office, a regular DNO application was submitted on my personal behalf to Mepa for amendments that were approved and carried out under his office’s supervision. I ask you to challenge him for a copy of the sanctioning application that is alleged in my name and even permit you to report about it. However, its non-existence should likewise be published with an accompanying apology.

Finally, may I remind your readers that from all those present for the Mepa Board meeting (including your reporter) the only persons that had no personal gain or interest in the case were those representing the NGOs (FAA and Ramblers) who strive only for the purpose of seeing that Mepa rules and policies are not flouted. That is a hard enough effort done voluntarily and against all odds. Unfair reporting is unwarranted and least expected from worthy reporters.

■ Alex Vella

President

Ramblers’ Association