I would have done the same, and cancelled his contract
Patrick Attard, the engineer who was a candidate for AD in the last election, has had his contracts with the Malta Resources Authority cancelled. They were cancelled after he entered into a debate on the internet, in which he expressed hostility to a Gozo project in which the Malta Resources Authority is involved directly as a regulator.
Mr Attard cannot understand why he was sacked. Nor can those littering the comments-board of timesofmalta.com with their howls of protest in favour of free speech and whistleblowers. They miss the point.
This is not about whistleblowing or freedom of speech, but about client confidentiality and not pushing against the interests of those for whom you work – not privately, still less publicly. Would any one of you write to publicly denigrate some project in which the company you work for is involved? Of course not. I would like to think that this is not necessarily because you are afraid of being sacked, but because you understand that it just wouldn’t be ethically correct. You owe your loyalty to your employer, who has to be able to trust you, especially when you are working at a high level of responsibility.
The curious thing is that so many believe it was perfectly all right for Mr Attard to publicly slate a project in which his contractual employer is directly involved, but ethically wrong for that contractual employer to cancel his contract on the grounds that they cannot trust him anymore – though they did say it was because he was using the MRA’s computer system to enter into public debates against projects in which the MRA is involved.
In his employer’s position, I would have done precisely the same thing. Imagine if I had to contend with, in my office and working on my projects, somebody who spends working time on the internet, using my equipment, to slate other projects in which I am involved. Given the strength to physically pick him up and throw him out, I would do so.
An employer cannot have, working within his building and with access to files and information, a person he feels unable to trust because that person’s loyalties are mixed. Surely it is not too difficult to put yourself in the position of the employer rather than in the position of the contractual employee.
Finally, this is a contract we are talking about, and not a full-time position, so the legal parameters are different. People on a professional service contract should be even more careful to use discretion.
23 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
The shareholders of the MRA are not private individuals, but the public. Before reporting to the MRA directors, public officials such as Dr Attard are responsible, first and foremost, to the public.
Since you took the freedom of comparing the MRA to a corporation, I will take the same freedom and show you a different point of view of the same comparison. If an employee was to report the directors of a company to the company’s shareholders of misconduct, I don’t see why he should be punished.
In my opinion, Dr Attard, as a public official, morally did the right thing.
[Daphne – You are completely wrong. There are structures and systems in place for reporting, and venting steam in an on-line forum is not one of them. No corporation, public or private, can work efficiently if it cannot trust the people within its walls. By this I do not mean trusting them to conceal wrong-doing, but trusting them not to behave like complete idiots. An engineer working in a professional consultancy capacity for a client – the MRA was Mr Attard’s client – is nothing short of a complete idiot if he takes to internet to blather on about projects in which his client is involved. It is absolutely unprofessional, and no amount of misplaced justification will change that. Mr Attard is not an employee and is in the position of choosing his clients. The correct course of action would have been to voluntarily relinquish the MRA contract and begin to act for the lobby opposing the Gozo project. He didn’t do so because he wished to carry on taking the MRA’s money while fighting against the MRA’s objectives.]
Idiot.
Ok I see your point. Makes sense if you look at it that way.
He bitched about his boss on an online forum. Bad move. Seriously, how is it that somebody who has the intellectual capacity to endure something as tough as an engineering degree cannot understand something as trivial as this.
Oh come on Daphne. Patrick commented as follows:
“Whilst it is important to respect the different religions of the country, I find it very strange that the Bishop has time to condemn the Nadur carnival yet no time to talk about the construction of the Nadur cemetery where the water was poisoned and more than 5,000 trees will be killed and the livelihood of the Nadur farmers endangered. It has been more than two years that his ‘sheep’ had been asking for a meeting. Well maybe if the total value of the graves reach €3.5 m then the things will come into perspective. Now where is the carnival?!”
[Daphne – How in heaven’s name do you think that’s all right? “Where the water was poisoned and more than 5,000 trees will be killed and the livelihood of the Nadur farmers endangered” – this is a project with input from the organisation with which he works under contract. And here he is, telling everyone that the project his employers are working on will poison the water (well, at least it wasn’t the Jews) and kill thousands of trees, destroying the livelihood of farmers – major hysterics and with no facts to back him up. I’m sorry, but you people really have no ethical standards if you think it’s all right for a professional consultant working under contract to go around saying this kind of thing about the projects his employers are involved in – even if it were true, which it is not.]
This man is a disgrace to the engineering profession.
[Daphne – Yes, another Peter Gatt and Paul Cardona. Il-veru kaz.]
Patrick Attard was in no way involved in the Nadur Cemetary affair, and he never came into contact with any information about this project while providing his services. According to the reports on the media, his contract was to provide information about the introduction of gas vehicles and work related to electricity. The MRA however terminated his contract specifically on the grounds of breach of confidentiality. It’s hard to imagine how they can justify this when a. he never dealt with the case as part of his work and b. the information he gave was just a repetition of what was already in the public domain.
If the MRA wanted to terminate his contract for another reason (such as using the authority’s IT equipment for personal reasons during work) it should have said so as soon as it terminated his contract, and not after he filed an action against them. Not to mention the inherent hypocrisy of terminating a contract simply for posting a comment when it is a well known fact that all employees, in all sectors, do this to forward emails and participate in online discussions. This is not to say that such behaviour is justified, but if the government is going to take action to clamp down on such behaviour, it should do so in all cases and not just to target its critics or those who criticise its buddies (in this case the church).
I also don’t understand how you can say that the MRA, as a regulator, was ‘involved’ in this project. Isn’t its job simply that of ‘regulating’? Or is it getting involved in projects jointly with the Church now as well?
[Daphne – Patrick Attard’s contract was not cancelled because he spoke out against the church. It was cancelled because, as a contract professional consultant with the Malta Resources Authority, he should employ discretion and not go around mouthing off with hysterical rumours about projects which the MRA, as regulator, is involved in. I know that the average Maltese person does not understand matters like conflict of interest, the wearing of two hats, discretion, business and corporate ethics and so on – hence Roderick Galdes speaking about major projects while wearing his political hat while he then has to vote on them as a member of the MEPA board (he should be sacked too), but the fact remains: a contract consultant does not, ever, in any way, speak or act in such a manner as to cause embarrassment or awkwardness for those who engage him. Unfortunately, some people have more hysteria than integrity. Isn’t this the man who stood for election as an AD candidate because he thinks homosexuals are persecuted in Malta? And the one who dramatically excommunicated himself from the Catholic Church, instead of doing what I do and simply not consider himself a Catholic? He’s a drama queen – literally. The next thing we’re going to hear is the accusation that he was sacked because he’s gay.]
I agree in principle with what you’re saying, but I fail to see how it applies to the case in question. The MRA is involved, as you said, as a regulator. As such its only job is to ensure that the project in question complies with the law and the applicable regulations. It certainly has no interest in defending the project against any criticism, whether justified or not. It would be like MEPA defending development applications rather than simply approving or turning them down. Your claim that Mr. Attard’s actions embarrassed or caused awkwardness to MRA would trouble me much, much more, since this would mean that MRA has an interest in seeing the project go through rather than just weighing its pros and cons and deciding accordingly in the public interest.
[Daphne – If you still can’t see it, I’ll draw a parallel. Patrick Attard is a consultant on contract to the Malta Communications Authority, the communications regulator. His brief is to work on project X. He goes on line, using the MCA computer and internet network, to allege that an antenna put up by one of the mobile telephony operators in village X is causing cancer and creating behavioural disturbances in the neighbourhood children. The next day, he is called in to the office and told that his contract is cancelled. Justified? I would say so. I would also imagine that the termination of Mr Attard’s contract was neither capricious nor done on impulse. His behaviour and attitude would have been bothering his contract-employer for some time for this incident to have provoked an instant reaction. Quite frankly, I’m not surprised, given his track record in the field of political drama.]
While at work (11.15) he was pushing his political agenda; if he really wanted to argue about the project he would have done it in his free time at home and signed P.Attard. We never read his contractual obligations towards the MRA.
@ C Attard
Precisely because, to quote you, “The MRA is involved, as you said, as a regulator”, that the Authority had no choice but to terminate the contract. People may have got the impression that he was speaking on behalf of the MRA. When one is associated with a regulator, extreme caution should be practised so as not to give the perception that one is biased.
Also, there is the fact that the Authority’s resources were misused. Just because many people do something, it doesn’t mean it is OK. When one uses company time for personal business, one is stealing from one’s employer. An employer pays his employee to deliver, and not to conduct his personal business at his expense.
I would have done the same. No question about it. He was in a particular glass house and threw a stone belonging to the people in the glass house. How can you trust a person who did that?
Exactly… however, in your example both the contract and the comments of the consultant related to the same project. In Mr. Attard’s case this was not so. Mr. Attard simply provides advice on gas vehicles and electricity. I don’t see how his comments (on the Nadur cemetery) could affect the quality of his advice/work or how they could embarrass the MRA, unless the MRA has an interest in defending the project beyond simply regulating it of course. And that is what worries me.
Like you said in one of your earlier posts, Mr. Attard was employed on contract and therefore the parameters are different. This both means he enjoys less security (although not without any protection) and also that he enjoys more autonomy within certain professional and ethical limits. The relationship between him and the MRA was based on that contract. To give you another example, it would be like firing a teacher who is a candidate with an opposition party just because they are its spokesperson on education and because they criticise the government’s educational policy. Since they are not involved in the drawing up or implementation of policy, I see no conflict of interest. Their teaching abilities are not affected.
And this is why your Roderick Galdes analogy is much better. Mr. Galdes is an adjudicator in MEPA, so there the conflict of interest is clear cut. Mr. Attard is in no way involved in an adjudicating position. It is adjudicators who mostly have to be careful to maintain an image of impartiality at all times.
I remember reading a couple of weeks ago in the English press that a teenager in her first job was sacked because she wrote in her Facebook status update that her job sucks. Imagine ratting about them on an online forum about a highly sensitive project! I think that loyalty to one’s employers is considered by some to be unimportant…it is the bedrock of everything.
Daphne, I am under the impression that, according to facts gathered by the MGRM, homosexuals are persecuted and discriminated against in Malta. But this is a different topic. I wish you could meet with the MGRM people and have a chat with them.
[Daphne – Of course homosexuals are not persecuted and discriminated against in Malta! For heaven’s sake! Name one incidence.]
I disagree with you Daphne.
The MRA specifically terminated his contract due to a ‘breach of confidentiality’. There quite clearly was no such breach in this regard. If they had other reasons to terminate his contract they should have spelt them out, rather than hiding behind this non sequitur. And what does his being gay have anything to do with it? Or are you implying that all gays are ‘drama queens’? A little less stereotyping would do rational arguement a power of good.
[Daphne – Being gay has nothing to do with it. Being a hysterical drama queen does. I imagine his contractual employers just didn’t know which fuse he’d blow next.]
The Nadur cemetery is there to stay. If anyone wants to have one of them he is free to apply for any which one of them. There are plenty and every one will be happy. Nadur needs a cemetery and is going to get one. No Camilleri or anyone else will stop this much needed project. The people of Nadur have spoken and the people of Nadur will get it.
Ho hum, yet another (graduate) expert blotting his copybook…yawn.
Sandro
Is your comment meant to be satirical or are you truly serious?
[Daphne – He’s serious. I’ve had to delete his every comment since, because they were so crazy I couldn’t even sub them, and I don’t want this turning into the comments-board of a certain newspaper. Then he sent in another one: “the snobbish pig censures my blog bla bla bla.”]
[Daphne – Of course homosexuals are not persecuted and discriminated against in Malta! For heaven’s sake! Name one incidence.]
Daphne are you living on the same small island I am? Here are just a few personal anecdotes:
-Being berated and threatened with the police by a neighbour after holding hands and hugging my partner-all in the privacy of our own balcony! Then putting up with the drama (who says straights can’t be bigger drama queens?) of him erecting an apartheid screen between our respective balconies to stop him ever seeing manifestations of our love and affection.
-It is currently perfectly legal in Malta to discriminate against gays or lesbians in the provision of any ‘service’ such as hostelry or seeing a professional, purely on the grounds of their sexuality.
-My partner being head hunted for a Head of Department job with a private company, all details of starting and time-tabling being given, only to be rejected at the 11th hour by the Managing director because of ‘technicalities’. We subsequently discovered on the grapevine (Malta is a small place) that this person is noted for his homophobic comments.
-Being spat at and taunted several times with the disparaging words ‘fag’ and ‘pufta’.
-Being denied full entitlement of the local pension or social security systems in spite of us paying our fair share of taxes, there being no local provision of any form of civil partnership.
-Should my partner enter hospital I would have no automatic next of kin rights as regards visiting, or indeed be entitled to any right to be involved in discussions regarding treatment or prognosis.
-Should I die then my partner would not be exempt from having to pay death duties, an exemption which would be available to straight married couples.
Both my partner and I enjoy professional careers, so we are better placed than most to stand up for ourselves and our rights. But if the above is a small snapshot of our own personal experience, it strongly challenges your assertion that there is no persecution or discrimination in Malta.
[Daphne – I have been through all of this on several occasions with homosexuals other than yourself who think that homosexuals are discriminated against in Malta. The homophobic insults of a few private individuals can in no way be deemed to constitute discrimination. I am insulted on a regular basis. It doesn’t make me feel discriminated against. For every neighbour who erects a screen there are 10,000 people who don’t give a damn. For the last 25 years at least I have not seen a homosexual being taunted or spat at. I don’t know in which circles you move. None of the homosexual men or women I know have similar stories to recount. Of course, if you dress to attract attention, then you’re going to get it. The same goes for women who dress like tarts – same difference. The other examples you mention are not cases of discrimination at all. I cannot understand why homosexuals believe they are special cases, and in the same breath say that they don’t want to be treated like special cases. There are far, far more heterosexual couples who cannot marry and who have no rights over each other’s property and pensions than there are homosexual couples in the same position. Do you honestly believe that a country with no divorce legislation is going to rush to introduce civil partnerships for homosexuals before it legislates for divorce? Give it a rest. Or join the campaign for divorce, because there is no way on earth you are going to get your civil partnership before heterosexuals get divorce – which you will then need too, once you have a civil partnership. Heterosexual couples have been enduring this situation for generations before openly homosexual couples came along and began making their demands. As for discrimination – what can I say? If you’re a man, homosexual or not, you can never understand the discrimination suffered by women throughout the ages. A man can hide his homosexuality. A woman can’t hide her gender.]
As the only other Sandro writing here apparently was me, I am just clarifying that the above “no surname” Sandro is not me.
So far I’ve only commented on the ‘50% AIDS’ thread. My last opinion in there was censored too, but I would not contest censorship in this blog. [Daphne – I don’t censor opinions. I edit them. I’m an editor, not a censor – or in blog terms, a moderator.]
Apart from clarifying this, I have no intention of commenting here unless directly or indirectly invoked. [Daphne – Like an evil spirit, do you mean?]
This, to avoid confusion. [Daphne – I don’t think there was any confusion. You should carry on calling yourself Sandro Pace. There are lots of people on this blog with very similar names.]
Mark, trust me, pufta and faggot are not offensive compared to what they used to call me when I was fat. People didn’t need to know your sexuality unless you told them about it, but I couldn’t hide my size and spent two years dieting. So get over it. If all else fails, you can move to San Francisco.
Daphne for someone who is, without any doubt, extremely intelligent and normally extremely clear thinking, you can occasionally be remarkably obtuse, which is most surprising.
The campaign and aspiration for homosexual equality in no way negates or takes precedence over the right of women to equal status, respect and opportunity. I recognise that society in Malta is extremely patriarchical and indeed misogynistic in parts. I would also be one of the first in line to support the rights of married couples to get divorced. I recognise that this will occur before civil partnerships are legislated for.
But the harm and damage done by discrimination and prejudice against gays and lesbians, all the way from the school ground to the work place, cannot be simply dismissed and denied, as you are apt to do. Indeed the vehemence of your denial, in the context of evidence to the contrary, is most peculiar.
May I also gently point out that I look and act as ‘straight’ as the next man, so have not been ‘asking for it’ in attracting any opprobrium. And even if I did not, that would be no justification for any discrimination.
[Daphne – Why do people shout ‘pufta’ and ‘faggot’ at you if you look ‘straight’? They either don’t, or you don’t. The vehemence of my denial comes from the fact that I am sick to the gills of hearing homosexual men whining that they are discriminated against and meet with prejudice. That may be true among the generation that even believes a woman’s place is in the home, but it’s not true with anyone else. The nature of the field in which I work means that very many of the people with whom I work are homosexual, men and women, and they meet with no discrimination at all, nor do they have any complaints of this nature. They are treated normally because they behave normally – in other words, no chips and no hang-ups. It’s the chips and the hang-ups that bring out resentment in people and not your sexuality. My favourite homosexual friend of all refuses to define himself as ‘gay’, to go to ‘gay’ events, or behave as other ‘gays’ would expect him to do. He lives a normal life with a long-term partner and does normal things mainly with heterosexual people, because, as he puts it, you don’t choose your friends on the basis of your sexuality. Sadly, homosexuals complain about being ghettoised, but then go to great length to ghettoise themselves, with special clubs, special events, special this and special that. What’s wrong with being part of mainstream society, for God’s sake? Does it hurt? Is it too boring (there, I agree)? Worse still, there are homosexual men who will not come out of that damned closet because they are afraid of how others will take it. So those others get the blame, because it’s easier to blame others than to come to terms with the fact that one is a coward.]
“Why do people shout ‘pufta’ and ‘faggot’ at you if you look ‘straight’?”
Because I was holding hands with my partner in a rare moment of public intimacy.
“My favourite homosexual friend of all refuses to define himself as ‘gay’, to go to ‘gay’ events, or behave as other ‘gays’ would expect him to do.”
My partner and I also are not into the ‘gay scene’ and live and behave as any straight couple do. But who am I to judge what the lifestyle of other people ought to be? I would relish the chance to have the rights and responsibilities of ‘mainstream’ society. So really we are after the same thing.
“Worse still, there are homosexual men who will not come out of that damned closet because they are afraid of how others will take it.”
That says an awful lot of how they perceive society to behave if they do ‘come out’. I agree it’s a crying shame. Half the people on TV and in the entertainment industry are gay, and yet they are not ‘out’ to the public (explicitly, rather than in a ‘camp’ implying sort of way). Not to mention members of the political class. A big problem for young gay men and women in the early years of discovering their sexuality is that they have no local role models to look up to or aspire to.
In my professional life I have come across many young gay men and women on the cusp of discovering their sexuality, and undergoing considerable trauma, psychologically and more, because of the expectations and pressures of society, yes even in this day and age. So yes, I aspire to the ‘nirvana’ of one’s sexuality just not mattering and being no more relevant than, say, one’s eye colour, but I still consider it naive to think that we have reached that stage of social development, especially in Malta’s context.