|
I refer to the article titled Seven years of illegal employment in Ghajnsielem published in the MaltaToday on 1 July 2007 by deputy editor Karl Schembri.
The article implies that the irregular employment of a clerk by the Ghajnsielem Local Council had the backing, or even worse, was sanctioned by the present Minister and the director responsible for Local Government. In addition, several comments made by Karl Schembri need clarification as they are based on erroneous conclusions and misinformed sources. More so, given that Mr Schembri did not even bother to obtain the Department’s views before going to print.
The fact that the Council clerk did not possess the required qualifications came to light in December 2004 during the proceedings of a court case instituted against the Ghajnsielem Local Council by an unsuccessful candidate for the post of Executive Secretary. This confirms that the employment of a Council employee (other than that of Executive Secretary) is, in terms of the Local Councils Act, totally within the remit of the Local Council, and the procedure for engagement of an employee is regulated through the ETC as laid down in the Constitution. At no stage is the Minister or the Department for Local Government involved in the process of employment of Council employee (including the vetting of the qualifications). The selection board, that included a representative from the ETC, was one appointed by the Council and the decision taken by the Council was based on the recommendations of the said selection board. The monitoring process by the Department is only carried out with respect to the engagement of an Executive Secretary as such engagement should be done in consultation with the Ministry responsible for local government. It is, therefore, evident that Department for Local Government was only made aware of this irregularity two and a half years ago.
As soon as this fact came to light, the Department for Local Government wrote to the Council requesting it to regularise its position. In view of the dire and exceptional circumstances the Council was facing, namely that the post of Executive Secretary was vacant and the Council employed only one clerk, the Ghajnsielem Council requested the Department not to adopt a draconian measure that would, in effect, paralyse the Council as it would end up with no clerical staff to carry out its administrative work.
After evaluating the circumstances, the Department decided upon a strategy that would not prejudice the daily operations of the Ghajnsielem Local Council. In fact, a Deputy Executive Secretary was immediately appointed to function until the eventual engagement of Executive Secretary (and after a final decision is taken by the court) and the Council was advised to make the necessary arrangements for the eventual replacement of Ms Sultana.
The measure adopted by the Department for Local Government, was one based on the best way forward for a continued functioning of the Council. Your readers would surely appreciate that the action adopted by the Department was one based on an evaluation of all the circumstances rather than the easier method of financial deductions that would not have solved anything but jeopardise the functioning of the Council to the detriment of the citizens, who rightly expect a service at all times.
It is also pertinent to point out that your journalist adopted a judge and jury attitude when making claims of breaches of the Data Protection Act, which issue was raised with the Data Protection Commission. The latter confirmed that this was not a case of breach of data protection. This was also the case when he refuted the Director’s claim that the department has no jurisdiction on the employment of local council employees, a fact clearly established by the Local Councils Act.
Also, for the sake of justice and correctness, it is to be stated that the Department for Local Government has always taken action to deduct any irregular payments made by any Council. With respect to “illegal payments” by the Ghajnsielem Local Council it is to be noted that the Department effected deductions to the tune of Lm560.
In view of these clarifications, one therefore suspects that the sole purpose of the article by Karl Schembri was to shed a bad light on the ministry and the Department for Local Government. Your readers should rest assured that no irregularity is tolerated by the Ministry and department responsible for local government and that action is taken when and in the appropriate measure and after an evaluation of all the circumstances.
Natalino Attard
Director, Local Government
Editorial note: Since MaltaToday started writing about the illegalities at the Ghajnsielem council two years ago it has always sought the department’s views and published them in its stories, including last Sunday’s which reproduced most of Attard’s views as expressed in previous correspondence. Last Sunday’s report did not claim that Attard’s department monitored the recruitment of clerks but that it had jurisdiction to sack them once it is ascertained that they are illegally employed, as evidenced by Austin Gatt’s decision in a similar case in 2000. Otherwise Attard’s claim that “the department has no jurisdiction on the employment of local council employees” can only mean that Gatt had acted beyond his powers seven years ago. Despite Attard’s deduction of Lm560 from the council’s budget because “illegal payments”, there are still another Lm30,000 that have to be refunded from salaries to the illegally employed clerk.
|
