Labour hits out at 'irregular' appointment of Mepa's environment director
The Labour Party have issued a statement in which they condemn the government for the direct appointment of Petra Bianchi as Director of the Environment without a public call.
Roderick Galdes, Labour spokesperson for Planning, Urban Development, Construction and Housing said that the position the Auditor General has taken is the same as that which was taken by the Labour Party, that Bianchi’s appointment was irregular.
Though Galdes voted against her appointment he said that it the problem was not Bianchi but the way in which she was appointed which is “in blatant violation of the law, denying the transparency that MEPA requires.”
Malta Environment and Planning Authority chairman Austin Walker justified the head-hunting exercise approved by the Prime Minister as it was a faster process than issuing a public call for applications, saying that the law allowed for such appointments to be made when the post was one of trust.
Bianchi was appointed head of MEPA’s Environment Protection Department in February to replace the outgoing Martin Seychell. She is the former director of heritage group Din l-Art Ħelwa.
Her appointment was approved by the MEPA board with eight votes in favour and one against on 4 February after she was hand-picked by Walker without a public call for applications.
Dr Bianchi was appointed for four years with a one-year probationary period.
Veteran environmentalist Edward Mallia filed a complaint to the Audit Office regarding the method of appointment.
On 8 February, Falzon asked the authority for more information on the appointment, which he received 10 days later.
However, Falzon noted that MEPA only asked the Employment and Training Corporation for clearance on 15 February after the appointment was made.
Falzon said it was “very unusual” that the selection process had been completed and the person appointed before authorisation from the Employment and Training Corporation was obtained.
Walker also claimed that from his experience “public calls also frequently give rise to claims of discrimination”.
Falzon rebutted this argument, insisting this was only true if a call for applications was worded to unreasonably favour particular candidates.
The auditor also highlighted relevant sections of the Public Administration Act which were not yet in force that showed how the legislator did not intend to make distinctions between positions of special trust and other posts.
While the auditor insisted this obliged MEPA to appoint people to positions of trust after a competitive process, Walker insisted the law was not yet in force and MEPA had no obligation whatsoever.
The report was vetted by a legal adviser from the Ombudsman’s office.