Justyne Caruana

This week on maltastar.com we had a very interesting piece entitled “‘Giovanna Boy’ appointed principal security office in Gozo’ Hospital”.

In my professional capacity I know what all Benjamin’s case was all about and I am very satisfied that Mr Sciberras was awarded his rightful claim.

With regards to Mr Joseph Grech, the picture is far from clear. Mr Grech was appointed without a call for applications – in fact Mr Sciberras and Mr Grech applied in terms of the same application and originally placed second and third respectively. The result was published in September 2005 and Mr Sciberras, who placed second at the time, logged his complaint to the PSC in terms of law and his petition was in fact upheld and placed first with Mr Grech then running up to the second place. In fact on the PSC Annual Report 2006, Mr Sciberras’ petition is marked at number 5. At number 44, there is another petition relating to the same post but was dismissed because Commission deemed unethical of petitioner complaining after two and a half years. However, this petitioner may have had his pound of flesh by other means presumably by being appointed Principal Security officer as well!

Returning to Mr Grech, in terms of the Public Service Management Code par. 1.2.1.16 the validity period of the results is one year. Mr Grech was appointed much after this one year period. Also in terms of par. 1.1.5.13 prior to recruitment of additional staff, heads of department have to confirm that ‘funds are available’ to enable the requested recruitment. How could such a request be submitted if there was no other call for applications? Even if we were to assume that such an appointment was based on the original call for applications that particular call for applications was for one principal security officer and not two. Quite a bleak picture indeed!

For the Gozo Ministry, the Public Service Management Code apparently is just a heap of paper and that rules are there to be broken. If the Public Service Commission deemed that petition number 44 was unethical behaviour, what should all this mess be called then?




Public Service Management Code shambles
Malta Star (17-10-2007)
This week on maltastar.com we had a very interesting piece entitled “‘Giovanna Boy’ appointed principal security office in Gozo’ Hospital”. In my professional capacity I know what all Benjamin’s case was all about and I am very satisfied that Mr Sciberras was awarded his rightful claim. With regards to Mr Joseph Grech, the picture is far from clear. Mr Grech was appointed without a call for applications – in fact Mr Sciberras and Mr Grech applied in terms of the same application and originally placed second and third respectively. The result was published in September 2005 and Mr Sciberras, who placed second at the time, logged his complaint to the PSC in terms of law and his petition was in fact upheld and placed first with Mr Grech then running up to the second place. In fact on the PSC Annual Report 2006, Mr Sciberras’ petition is marked at number 5. At number 44, there is another petition relating to the same post but was dismissed because Commission deemed unethical of petitioner complaining after two and a half years. However, this petitioner may have had his pound of flesh by other means presumably by being appointed Principal Security officer as well! Returning to Mr Grech, in terms of the Public Service Management Code par. 1.2.1.16 the validity period of the results is one year. Mr Grech was appointed much after this one year period. Also in terms of par. 1.1.5.13 prior to recruitment of additional staff, heads of department have to confirm that ‘funds are available’ to enable the requested recruitment. How could such a request be submitted if there was no other call for applications? Even if we were to assume that such an appointment was based on the original call for applications that particular call for applications was for one principal security officer and not two. Quite a bleak picture indeed! For the Gozo Ministry, the Public Service Management Code apparently is just a heap of paper and that rules are there to be broken. If the Public Service Commission deemed that petition number 44 was unethical behaviour, what should all this mess be called then?
2007 - Justyne Caruana