Why break a working formula? | Matthew Maggi

Matthew Maggi is a film-maker

At a time when Malta's cultural sector desperately needs stability and trust, the quiet removal of Mary Ann Cauchi from her leadership role at Arts Council Malta has caused more than internal disruption—it has unsettled confidence in a system that, for once, appeared to be functioning.

This isn’t an article against Luke Dalli. It’s not about personalities. It’s about accountability, and the growing trend of reshuffling key public roles without transparency, consultation, or explanation.

Mary Ann Cauchi, until recently Director of Funding and Strategy, was no ordinary administrator. She led the Council’s grant structures with clarity and consistency, earning the respect of countless artists and creative professionals. Her office provided rare stability in a sector too often marked by confusion and political interference. She listened, acted, and, crucially, remained committed to fairness and professionalism.

By all accounts, she was part of a formula that worked. Which is why her sudden removal—without explanation, without a public transition plan—feels not just unjust, but damaging. Especially when it coincides with the appointment of a new Executive Chairperson, Luke Dalli, via a process that bypassed an open call or internal competition. Again, this is not about Dalli’s competence, but about how we treat institutional memory and public trust.

In a country where leadership changes are too often shrouded in opacity, public cultural institutions should lead by example. Transitions must be earned, explained, and rooted in merit. There’s no evidence that Mary Ann’s performance was under review. No indication she was considered for continued leadership. And no one has made the case for how her removal benefits the sector.

What message does that send? That experience is expendable? That effectiveness can be quietly dismissed?

The Malta Entertainment Industry and Arts Association (MEIA) was right to raise concern—not necessarily about who was appointed, but about how. The real issue is how decisions are being made, and whether the cultural sector is being managed for long-term benefit or short-term control. When experienced leaders disappear without reason, it damages morale and erodes trust in the very structures that artists rely on.

In my own experience, I’ve been a difficult voice in the room. Loud, blunt, often too persistent. But through every conflict, Mary Ann remained calm, respectful, and focused on solutions. Even when I didn’t make it easy. She listened—really listened—and acted, not out of ego, but out of commitment to the artists and their work. Her removal cuts off one of the few human links between creatives and the bureaucracy that funds them.

And while this article isn’t meant to discredit Luke Dalli, the public deserves clarity. Dalli has been around the Council for a while. He learned under Albert Marshall, who—despite his own political appointment—brought significant experience and a genuine care for the arts. I’ve tested Marshall’s patience more than once, and he’s been direct with me. He might have even wanted to hit me with his walking stick a few times, but I always knew he respected the work, and he always encouraged me not to lose my fire. If Luke has inherited that from him, we may yet see that leadership.

To Dalli’s credit, he recently called me directly when I raised concerns about new grant guidelines. He listened. That kind of engagement matters. It’s more than many in power are willing to do. Minister Owen Bonnici could take a leaf out of Dalli’s book—listen first, engage with criticism, and stop rushing to discredit those raising issues.

Because problems remain. Last year, when Luke’s salary was quietly doubled, artists were still waiting months for payments. Especially in the film sector, funding delays were suffocating, and the lack of communication worsened things. The optics of a sudden wage increase while creators were left in limbo felt insulting. And MEIA, the very body meant to lobby for the sector, said nothing. That silence only highlighted how deep the disconnect has become.

To be fair, MEIA has raised valid concerns at other times. But like many of us, their warnings are too often ignored. The government’s standard response is performative: Call a meeting, snap a photo, and move on. It happened after the delayed payment fiasco. It happened when grant recipients were asked to pose for photos with empty envelopes, as if the money had already arrived. It’s a recurring charade that values optics over outcomes.

In my own case, when I pushed back against a 60-day disbursement rule that made proper planning impossible, I eventually got results. The rule was dropped, and payments were promised faster. But why did it take a loud complaint to fix something so obviously flawed? Why were the lobby groups and associations ignored when they too raised the same issues previously. Why aren’t these issues proactively addressed by those in charge?

That’s why Mary Ann’s removal hurts. She knew the system. She worked to make it better. She helped interpret confusing guidelines and ensured artists had someone to turn to. Her absence leaves a gap that no promotion or political maneuvering can fill.

Why not keep her alongside Dalli? Why not build on what was working instead of dismantling it?

This isn’t about blocking change or resisting new leadership. It’s about insisting that change be logical, transparent, and respectful of those who’ve earned their place. Instead, it feels like the ministry is more interested in controlling the narrative than improving the system. Even as MEIA speaks up, we already know how this will likely go—ignore, deflect, stage a photo op, and call it a solution.

Meanwhile, artists continue to wait. For funding. For answers. For fairness. For respect.

If Luke Dalli truly wants to lead, he must recognise the value of those who came before him, not just his mentors, but colleagues like Mary Ann who held the system together. Leadership isn’t just about titles or salaries. It’s about understanding the people you serve and protecting what they need to thrive.

So yes, we can welcome new leadership. But we have every right to ask: Why remove someone who earned the sector’s trust? Why break a formula that was working?