Now is an opportune time to reflect on the type of government we have here in Bermuda — and not because MPs are trooping back up the Hill today for an extraordinary September sitting.For me the reflection is prompted in part by the recent and somewhat controversial appointment of a new Commissioner of Education. It crystallises some of the challenges thrown up by the system regardless perhaps, of which party if in power, maybe. You be the judge. Voters ultimately are.Back to the appointment. We were told that an independent selection committee was struck to vet candidates and make the final decision. Independent from what? From unnecessary, undue political influence is what. Fair enough. This is the education of our children that we are talking about and we want the best. It isn’t a job for cronies and friends.On the other hand this is a key post in public education. The job of the Commissioner is critical to the success of plans to improve performance within our schools and educational reform was a campaign promise of the new OBA Government. The holder of the post must therefore surely be someone with whom the Government can work and, moreover, someone in whom Government has the confidence that he will get the job done. In the circumstances then you might not think it unreasonable that the Government of the day at least be consulted before final selection is made, if not have the final say by way of a veto.In this case, there are two further and important reasons why this should be so: first, it can hardly be helpful if the successful candidate comes to the post with a controversial track record and in a field with a history of conflict and controversy over how our children should be educated; and secondly, where there were qualified Bermudian applications who presumably (and I use that word advisedly) were being groomed under a Government committed to Bermudianisation.But the impression is given that Government didn’t have much of a say, notwithstanding the attendance of an Acting Minister of Education at the first announcement, and the presence of the Minister at a subsequent press conference. The two of them stood effectively mute. But it would have been good to have heard (1) that the Minister and the Cabinet believe that he is the man for the job and a man with whom they can work to get the job done; and (2) exactly what their plans are for improving public education under the new Commissioner, how the new Commissioner will implement those plans, and the timetable by which we can measure and assess performance.Instead the PS was trotted out in the face of criticism over the selection. Pity. I don’t want to pile on here but it seems to me that the PS has still to work with some of the very people he purported to criticise. If internal relations were that bad within the Ministry, they probably just got worse. Not good.Think now of the ramifications of the decision making process at play here, remembering that success has many fathers and that failure is an orphan.Of course we all hope that it will work out for the sake of our children. But if it doesn’t, who is going to hold who to account? The selection committee? The PS? Public Service Commission? Head of the civil service? The Minister? Government? You have to admit there is plenty of scope there to pass the buck, to make it someone else’s decision, someone else’s responsibility. We have seen how this can play out before. Exhibit A: Look no further than reports and findings of the Auditor General.Just who’s in charge is a conundrum sufficient to confound even the SAGE Commission as it searches for ways to make government more efficient and effective. Accountability is key: but being accountable and actually being held to account are two very different things.This leads me nicely into the award winning SAGE submission. Space permitting, I have two very quick observations:* From the version I read (abridged or unabridged, I’m not sure) it struck me that a lot of what was suggested were matters you might reasonably expect to be addressed in the ordinary course of running a business, in this case the business of government. So you ask yourself: we need a SAGE Commission to make it happen?* There was a kind of déjà vu all over again with some of the revelations. I hark back to those reports of the Auditor General and the debates that ensued on and off the Hill. But nothing, I repeat, nothing, appears to have happened. We are back to the point of accountability — or lack of it; and spare a thought here for our Auditor General who might be forgiven for wringing her hands, wondering what more she must do, but hopefully, please, not wondering if the work is worth the effort.* What’s your view? Share them on The Royal Gazette website or write to John Barritt at jbarritt@ibl.bm.