Lawrence Gonzi wants to implement a Code of Ethics that can regulate the more controversial aspects of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA).
And yet, the very code he proposes exonerates political appointees such as DCC members from sanctions otherwise reserved for MEPA employees only.
Article 13 of the code proposes sanctions to employees involved in breaches of the code which regulates conflicts of interest. But appointees chosen by government ministers to serve on the MEPA board and the development control commission (DCC) are not mentioned in the clause.
This shortcoming is just one of the various points that MEPA’s union for professional officers (UPAP) is expected to raise in a meeting with Gonzi to also discuss why political appointees are not reserved the same treatment as employees in the code of ethics.
For example, the code prohibits employees or appointees from accepting gifts, or even frequent invitations to lunches, that could be used to deviate from their proper course of duty. The code states that when employees or appointees are offered undue advantage, they are to report in writing the attempt as soon as possible to their supervisor or board chairperson, or even the police.
However, and only in the case of employees, their supervisor can remove the task previously assigned to them and hand it over to someone else. Critics say this could be a subtle way of removing the whistleblower from any task they are assigned, to instead assign another employee who might be less inclined to resist “undue pressure”.
Again, this treatment is only reserved for employees. No course of action is suggested for appointees who are offered gifts or bribes, and whether they get reassigned new duties once they report such advances.
Another difference reserved in the treatment of employees and appointees is their comments to the media: employees are forbidden from involving themselves in the media without written permission from the MEPA chairman. Appointees, on the other hand, are only asked to “handle with care” their contributions to the media, which are not vetted by the chairman.
MEPA employees who also have part-time employment are asked to give their MEPA employment “first consideration” and “avoid situations” giving rise to a situation or appearance of conflict of interest. MEPA reserves the right to withhold permission to employees where “such situations are predicted”, but the same treatment or consideration is not asked of MEPA appointees.
The code also does not preclude appointees from occupying or contesting posts of elected political office, but only prevents MEPA employees. While the position of existing MEPA officials like Labour MP Roderick Galdes is safeguarded by a transitional clause, allowing them to serve their present and any subsequent term until they lose office, the clause says nothing of appointees serving on the MEPA or DCC boards.
One of the most controversial aspects of the code is the clause allowing the MEPA chairperson to meet private developers, as long as the chairperson is accompanied by the case officer or another directorate official.
The practice is highly controversial since it was rebuked by MEPA auditor Joe Falzon in 2006 over meetings between chairman Andrew Calleja and developers for the Ta’ Qali mega-tent. Falzon stated this was a “dangerous practice” since employees in such meetings can feel pressured into assuming all that is said by the chairman as an order to be followed.
The code does not mention whether it is possible for a case officer to refuse, but it does state that if a case officer cannot accompany the chairman, another director official can be present. Such a situation would legitimise meetings such as the alleged meeting held between MEPA chairman Andrew Calleja and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, and the former ministry official Lawrence Vassallo serving as MEPA complaints officer, over the controversial Mistra project.
The code however states that employees or appointees are duty-bound to reject any undue pressure intended to influence them in their decisions.
Another point of divergence is the “full support” employees and appointees are expected to give to official MEPA policy. The code says personal views and beliefs should not take precedence over approved policy.
While employees who find themselves at variance with a policy are to discuss the issue with their superiors, appointees on the other hand need only “consider carefully the respective weighting they shall give to that policy”. Critics say this can only leave DCC and MEPA members to instantly shoot down approved policy simply by invoking a standard maxim: that the policy goes against “good planning” – just a matter of conscience for MEPA’s most notorious decision-makers.
UPAP has already stated the code should not make a distinction between appointees and employees. “It is well known that many problems resulted from decision making at appointee level and not from recommendations at employee (directorate) level,” and that the code should apply over the whole government service, “since decision-making is not only the prerogative of MEPA.”

mvella@mediatoday.com.mt