I write on behalf of the Ministry of Education and Employment.

Please refer to the letter written by Joe Falzon dated 20 August 2012 in response to my letter dated 17 June 2012.

In the first place, I would like to reiterate and re-emphasise that this letter is being sent to you with due deference to your readers and with due deference to the truth. After months and months of correspondence with Mr Falzon, the Ministry has informed him that correspondence with him on this subject is closed. Mr Falzon can rest assured that no amount of harassing e-mails sent directly to the Minister personally and messages left on the answering machine of the undersigned, in direct violation of all ethical standards (in respect of which all rights are being reserved), will elicit a reply directly to him. That position still stands.

In his last paragraph, Mr Falzon exhorted me not to twist facts and to answer point one and two of his letter. I can assure Mr Falzon that if any twisting is being done in this case it is on his part and this for the simple reason that he keeps insisting on not recognising a state of fact. No amount of twisting and manipulation on his part will ever bring about a situation where the truth, as expounded by the Ombudsman in his decision, will ever be modified. It is Mr Falzon’s interpretation of that truth which is being twisted by Mr Falzon for reasons best known to him.

I will attempt to respond concisely to all the points brought forward by Mr Falzon and not just the first two. In respect of point one, Mr Falzon felt that he should quote from the decision of the Ombudsman in his case where the Ombudsman stated that Mr Falzon’s qualification was incorrectly assessed. Unfortunately, Mr Falzon fails, intentionally or not, to appreciate the implications of that statement. The assessment referred to by the Ombudsman is the assessment carried out in 1996 in the light of today’s criteria. This crucial point is conveniently ignored by Mr Falzon for reasons best known to him.

What Mr Falzon chose not to quote in respect of the decision of the Ombudsman is the opening sentence under the heading “Conclusion and Recommendations”, namely Article 7 of the decision which stated in no uncertain terms that, “In the light of the above considerations, I cannot conclude that there has been an act of misconduct on the part of the Directorate, which acted by what had been established by the Authority at the time.” What Mr Falzon is insisting upon is that the Ministry accepts fault when no fault is imputable. That is, I feel understandably so, totally unacceptable to the Ministry.

With respect to point two of the letter to Mr Falzon, the latter should note it would be highly irregular and unethical, not to say utterly useless, for the Ministry to divulge what criteria were utilised by the Board assessing the qualification around 16 years ago (1996). Those criteria were the universal criteria utilised in those days, which criteria have evolved with the passage of time. This very fact was accepted by the Ombudsman himself when he said that the Directorate had acted by what had been established by the Authority at the time.

With regard to point three of Mr Falzon’s letter, your readers should note that the ‘unethical conditions’ Mr Falzon is referring to is that Mr Falzon accepts in writing what the Ombudsman said in his decision, ie that the Ombudsman “cannot conclude that there has been an act of misconduct from the part of the Directorate”. The implication of this statement on the part of the Ombudsman is that the Ministry is under no legal or moral obligation to effect payment to Mr Falzon, but this notwithstanding, the Ministry is ready so to do absolutely without prejudice and on an ex gratia basis. Mr Falzon has refused to do this so that the payment cannot be effected.

With regard to point four, I cannot help wondering who is doing the twisting here. The voting intentions voiced on the eve of a general election in totally unrelated contexts can only be interpreted as a threat or a half baked attempt at coercion by means of which Mr Falzon is trying to get the Ministry to do something he wants it to do. Fortunately, coercive tactics, such as the above, and, as reiterated above, the continuous sending of harassing e-mails directly to the Minister and attempts to communicate verbally with the undersigned in violation of all ethical standards will not suffice to get the Ministry (or the undersigned for that matter) to accept Mr Falzon’s totally unjustified request.

In conclusion, the offer made by the Ministry to Mr Falzon that payment as recommended by the Ombudsman will be effected so long as Mr Falzon accepts in writing what the Ombudsman has said in his decision, still stands.

Joseph P. Bonello LL.D.