Beyond the complaint: Improving transparency in recruitment at MCAST

Beyond the complaint: Improving transparency in recruitment at MCAST

Published April 25, 2025

The complaint

A teacher with 24 years of experience in early childhood education lodged a complaint with the Commissioner for Education after being unsuccessful in an interview for the position of Full-Time Lecturer in Early Childhood Education at MCAST’s Gozo Campus.

The complainant, who holds both a Bachelor’s and a Master’s degree in the field, alleged that the interview process was unfair, the scoring did not reflect her qualifications and experience, and that the panel was biased. She also raised concerns about delays in communication from MCAST and the lack of transparency regarding the allocation of marks for sub-criteria used in the interview assessment.

Facts and findings

The Commissioner verified that the panel responsible for the interview was validly constituted and had followed appropriate procedures. He also confirmed that of the three eligible candidates, only two attended the interview, and both failed to reach the required pass mark. The complainant ranked second.

While the complainant argued that her score did not reflect her academic qualifications and teaching background, the Commissioner noted that it was not within his remit to reassess or substitute the expert judgment of the interviewing panel. He accepted that the revision of the mark was due to a genuine error and found no indication of wrongdoing.

Regarding the delays in MCAST’s responses to the complainant’s queries, the Commissioner acknowledged that while these delays were not in line with best practice, they did not reach the threshold of maladministration as defined under Article 22 of the Ombudsman Act.

The complainant also alleged bias on the part of the panel, referencing remarks in the interview report that described her as aggressive and lacking compassion. However, in the absence of video recordings -- something MCAST has opted not to implement -- the Commissioner had to rely on written documentation and other evidence, and found no concrete proof to support claims of bias. He did, however, stress that the implementation of video recordings would have provided more reliable evidence in such disputes.

Conclusions and recommendations

Although the complaint was not upheld, the Commissioner recommended improvements to ensure greater transparency and better service delivery. He urged MCAST to ensure that all administrative staff comply fully with Directive 4-2 of the Principal Permanent Secretary, which outlines standards for service excellence in public administration in connection with the prompt reply to queries by email. Furthermore, he reiterated a previous recommendation that interviews for posts at MCAST be video-recorded, with the consent of candidates, and that these recordings be retained for a specified period to support any future appeals or reviews.

Outcome

After the delivery of the Final Opinion, the management of MCAST informed the Commissioner that there could be issues of GDPR in connection with the video recording of interviews, and proposed instead that the internal ‘People Management Procedure Manual’ of MCAST be amended requiring selection boards to “keep detailed and comprehensive notes concerning the questions asked and responses provided during the interview” instead of the customary and rather perfunctory minutes. After seeking the advice of the Data Protection Commissioner, the Commissioner for Education agreed with MCAST’s proposal. MCAST also amended the aforementioned Manual by inserting specific and comprehensive references to the Directive of the Principal Permanent Secretary regarding the prompt reply to emails received.

This case highlights how the intervention of the Office of the Ombudsman can result in meaningful administrative reform, even when a complaint is not sustained on its merits.