Is it not extraordinary that the members of Mepa’s Development Control Commission resigned en bloc on Wednesday evening after a damning report issued by the authority’s auditor.
The current furore centres on the granting of a permit for a Safi supermarket, which the auditor, Joe Falzon, described as grossly irregular and gave cause for “the most serious concern.”
All the members of the DCC voted in favour of the proposed development despite a recommendation for refusal by the Planning Directorate. It chose to ignore all the relevant approved policies and approve an application without in any way justifying its actions based on approved policies, said the report.
My question is this: what is the point of having approved policies, if they are just ignored?
Carmel Cacopardo, now AD spokesman on the environment has recommended an amendment to the Development Planning Act through which an approved permit can be modified or withdrawn if a permit is issued against official policies.
That to my mind is Kafkaesque. You do not extend an already complex bureaucracy. You will end up recommending yet another amendment to amend that amendment at some later date.
What should be done is ensure that relevant official policies are followed by appointing the right people in the first place. Above all none of them should have party affiliations and conflicts of interest and secondly, they should be strong enough to withstand political and other pressures.
Mr Cacopardo has worked in the auditor’s office and was the scourge of the powers that be at Mepa, until they got rid of him. He then defected from the PN to AD when Dr Gonzi dismissed his whistle blowing.
A political coup for AD.
To get back to the report, the auditor concluded that the site in question was outside the development zone and, therefore, the permit should never have been issued and that since the project was so extensive it should have been covered by an environmental impact assessment (EIA).
Of course, there are plenty more damaging environmental changes that have gone ahead with no EIAs with the past DCC’s blessing. This is just the tip of the iceberg and it is thanks to Mepa’s auditor’s hard work, political infighting and the upcoming election that so much is being revealed now.
Resignations are very rare here. That is why I found the resignation en bloc extraordinary. I am sure that this is not the first time that the auditor has rapped the DCC.
So why now? Do you think that the possibility of a different administration might have something to do with this?
Or, is it that caretaker Prime Minister, Lawrence Gonzi has promised to reform MEPA if he is re-elected, so whatever happened their days were numbered?
The DCC members’ reason for resigning was that they “feel aggravated that the auditor proceeded to censor their unanimous decision, in spite of having submitted the auditor with clarifications and valid justifications to the conclusions in his Preliminary Report”.
So what does that tell us? It tells me that they are irritated because they consider themselves above any control. This is precisely the prevalent mindset, among quite a few people who consider themselves above reproach and not to be held to account for their actions, that is causing so much heart searching and doubt among the electorate.
“Don’t annoy us because we know best” is the message, whatever the Planning Directorate recommends, or the auditor holds them to account on, in the case of the DCC. Just because they submitted clarifications and valid justifications to the auditor, it does not mean he had to accept them. An auditor is there to independently assess and judge what is acceptable and what is not. He was the one to decide whether the justifications were valid or not. He obviously did not.
Also, the use of the word “censor” is crafty, because people more commonly associate censorship with suppression rather than criticism and being held accountable.
If, as the DCC (past) members claim, they have “always undertaken their responsibilities with diligence, without any personal interests and with a clear conscience in the best of their abilities”, they had no reason to resign.
So how come Lawrence Gonzi was so quick to replace them? Maybe, because they ignored relevant policies. A statement from the OPM reiterated his pledge to personally oversee Mepa’s reform if re-elected and that he would “carefully consider and eventually implement the recommendations made by the audit officer, within the context of other developments to have a more transparent planning system.”
Why was it necessary to say “within the context of other developments”? Will the chairman now also resign again? He has said he had “full confidence in them (DCC)”. It will be interesting to see whether he will, and whether it will be accepted this time around?

The promises continue
Lawrence Gonzi has again promised that if re-elected he would introduce new and young people to his Cabinet. He is well aware that not replacing some of his ministers, despite public and private opinions, was a mistake.
I would hope that a new PN administration would want a refreshing change, including changes in the Cabinet, but it is not just different faces, or youth, that matter.
Air Malta is the latest football to be kicked about by the two main parties with the MLP claiming that the airlines’ employees’ future would be threatened if the PN were returned to government.
Frankly, any airline employee, except perhaps Emirates staff, has to consider the possibility that staff cuts will be made in what is an increasingly cutthroat sector. But of course no political party will admit that before an election.
Both political parties are promising the moon without telling us which spaceship will take us there. And they are conveniently ignoring the fact that spaceships cost a lot of money.
Although the MLP does not have the hofra to fill this time, all the cuts in taxes and utility charges need to be replaced by another source of income, as do the health service and education. Unless it is going to start raining manna.
In its bid to outdo the PN on tourism, the MLP is promising three golf courses. Which planet is it on? One of the PN’s weak spots is the environment and what does Alfred Sant do? He proposes not one but three golf courses. When the whole world is looking for ways to preserve water, which was described as “the oil of the 21st century”, by Andrew Liveris, chairman of Dow Chemical at the last Davos meeting, the MLP proposes water guzzling golf courses.

Different day, but still EU celebration
In response to Corinne Vella’s letter, which she was polite enough to copy to me, I have racked my brain to remember when I had seen the two sisters in the scenario I mentioned last Wednesday and on Sunday Feb 17, because I did not think I dreamt it up.
I had left Corinne out of the picture the first time around because the article was not about her. It was only in jogging my memory after Daphne’s letter last Sunday that she came into the picture. Because I assured myself I would not have imagined seeing both.
It transpired that it was the day, or the day after, the Referendum on the EU was won, (Mar 9 or 10, 2003).
Anyway, the day does not really matter, it was the fact that Daphne had put herself in a prime position that clearly identified her as a PN groupie that does.

A nimby
By the way, where was Georg Sapiano when I spearheaded the campaign to curtail fireworks abuses? It is amazing how some people only get hotly involved in issues when it hits or suits them.

pamelapacehansen@gmail.com