Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/213780
4 News maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2013 St Julian's council silent on Local Governance Board censure JURGEN BALZAN THE Local Governance Board "censured" the St Julian's local council over the expression of interest it published for a €13 million project. However, mayor Peter Bonello refused to provide his reaction to MaltaToday, insisting he would only do so once the council meeting is held next month. The expression of interest issued by the St Julian's local council in July without a call for tenders, lacked transparency and was illegal, the Local Governance Board concluded. The board's report shows that the project, including a community home for the elderly, a car park and new offices for the local council, was awarded to CareMalta within three working days and the council's architect acted as "judge, jury and executioner". In August, following a report published by MaltaToday, Parliamentary Secretary for Local Governance Josè Herrera ordered the Department of Local Government to revoke the decision taken by the St Julian's local council to adjudicate a €13 million project without issuing a tender. The department only became aware the project was adjudicated after MaltaToday's report on Sunday 25 August, which revealed that the €13 million public private partnership project was awarded to construction magnate and PN donor Nazzareno Vassallo without a call for tenders. The board's report shows that the process was "vitiated, lacking transparency and in breach of the law". MaltaToday's questions sent to the council remained unanswered for over a week, and when the council secretary was contacted by phone, she said that, "the mayor has nothing to add to the comments he provided before the report was published". Asked whether the mayor would at any point answer questions on the damning report, MaltaToday was told that Bonello, a Nationalist Party veteran, would only speak to the press once the local council meets in December. PN leader Simon Busuttil has also refused to comment on the report, which clearly said that the local council expression of interest was in breach Artist's impression of the St Julian's Care Malta project of law, insisting that he would only comment after receiving the council's reaction. Following the initial report which was published in August, Busuttil had backed the PN-led council and said that the St Julian's local council had followed all legal and procedural requirements. The PN had said its councillors confirmed that they had "followed the procedure agreed with government and have now also sought further confirmation of this with the Department of Contracts and the Ministry of Finance". While noting that the St Julian's local council did not own the land and had no right to issue a call for land which was allocated to the department of elderly care in 2012, the report recommended that the process should start from scratch and respect procedures and regulations set by law. Furthermore, the local governance board confirmed that competitors were not given the right to appeal against the decision of the St Julian's local council decision. Herrera had ordered an investigation by the board of local governance because the process was irregular since the procedure and the criteria established by the local council were not approved neither by the Lands Department nor by the department for local governance. On 21 July, the St Julian's council published a small, inconspicuous advert in local newspapers in which it issued an expression of interest (EOI) for a community home for the elderly, a car park and new offices for the local council. In its report, the board identified a number of shortcomings, including the short period of time between the publication of the call and the deadline lasting just over two weeks. This was in breach of the local council procedures, which stipulate that calls should be open for a minimum of one month. The board of local governance also chastised the St Julian's council for failing to publish the call in the EU gazette as required by law and entered into an agreement with a commercial entity without the minister's consent. Apart from Nazzareno Vassallo's CareMalta, another two companies, Attard Brothers and JSGR Consortium submitted an application; however, in what seems like an arbitrary decision by the St Julian's local council, two out of the three applicants were disqualified from the process, leaving CareMalta as the sole bidder. In total, three companies – Attard Brothers, CareMalta and JSGR Consortium – submitted an application; however, in what seems like an arbitrary decision by the St Julian's local council, two out of the three applicants were disqualified from the process, leaving CareMalta as the sole bidder. The two excluded companies were not given any explanation for their disqualification by the local council and were also denied the opportunity to appeal this decision. In August 2010, Peter Bonello said that once the permits were in place a tender would be issued, however the local council has decided to do away with the public tender. EOIs are normally issued to assess the level of international and local interest in a particular proposal. Subsequently, a public tender is usually issued to select the bid for which the Department of Contracts becomes responsible. The main difference between the two is that while a public tender includes the possibility of an appeal if any of the bidders feels the process was unfair, an EOI simply leaves it up to the council to choose the most favourable bid and its decision will be final. The report holds that the council call expired on 8 August and the project was adjudicated on 14 August, just three working days later. The local governance board also pointed out that the council failed to appoint a specialised committee to adjudicate the project but instead the council appointed its own architect, Stephen Farrugia, married to Mosta's PN mayor, Shirley Farrugia, to act as "judge, jury and executioner". The report concluded that this practice was unacceptable because it did not respect the principles of accountability, transparency and good governance. It added that the council exposed itself to a possible penalty of €50,000 had the contract been signed. DNA result not enough to grant parental rights THE father of a 10-month-old daughter filed a Constitutional application claiming his fundamental rights were breached when the Family Court denied him access to his daughter, despite him having proven his paternity by means of a DNA test. Baby Elenia was born of a relationship Joseph Psaila had with Graziella Debono. However, without the father's consent, Debono registered her daughter as 'father unknown'. Psaila instituted proceedings against the Director of Public Registry to register his name on his daughter's birth certificate. The father also exhibited a DNA test proving Elenia is his natural daughter and that he is her father. Nevertheless, Debono still denied him the right to see his daughter. On 11 October, Psaila demanded the family court to assign a right to see his daughter, however the request was rejected on the basis that his name does not appear on his daughter's birth certificate. Having exhausted all means of securing a right of access to his daughter, and having his DNA test result ignored, Joseph Psaila turned to the Constitutional Court, claiming previous court decrees breached his fundamental rights when denying him access to his child. Through his lawyers the father filed a Constitutional application, demanding he be granted his fundamental right of access to his daughter. The Constitutional application was signed by lawyers David Camilleri and Joseph Gatt.