Three years ago, the Corporations of Hamilton and St. George and the Government of Bermuda had at least this much in common: they agreed on the need to reform municipal government. Last Friday, when Government tabled the Municipalities Reform Act 2010, any hope that agreeing in principle might lead to thoughtful dialogue on the issue disappeared. Clearly, common ground is overrated.

There was an opportunity to discuss the full package of reforms the Corporations first sent to the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General in October 2008, but that opportunity was missed. Instead, Government retreated behind an impenetrable wall of silence until it emerged, eight months later, stating that "the Municipalities Act 1923 should be repealed and the operations of the Municipalities [should] be transitioned into the relevant Government Departments".

Questions were asked. Government continued to stonewall. Their $800,000 foreign consultants arrived, they listened politely, they went away, they presumably issued their report. No comment from the minister in charge. The mayor of Hamilton presented the Corporations' recommendations for reform to Cabinet earlier this year. No comment from the minister in charge.

Now, just a week before Parliament completes its summer session, the minister in charge has delivered a bill whose contents have never been discussed in any serious way with anyone but the PLP caucus and Cabinet. This lack of meaningful consultation with stakeholders flies in the face of democratic Parliamentary principles and is especially shocking with legislation that affects important issues of governance in a democratic society.

Under these circumstances, neither the Corporations nor Government have justified their respective positions to the public, and our democracy is the poorer for it.

Although the Corporation of Hamilton has waged a vigorous and expensive public relations campaign to defend itself against an expected takeover, it has never made a substantive case to justify its own existence. City Hall says Government has wasted taxpayer dollars on outside consultants when negotiation would have sufficed. They point out the CoH balances its budgets whereas Government has created a Mt. Everest of debt. They claim Government's record of efficiency and management of capital projects is dismal. All true enough, but it's an exercise in finger-pointing.

What the CoH hasn't explained is what difference it makes to the average person whether the city-as a municipal entity-exists or not. Take away the CoH and some authority would still be there to pick up garbage, pave sidewalks, maintain sewers and host public events. It might not be as efficient, but the job would get done.

There is an argument to be made, however, for strong local government, and it's a pity that the COH's justifiably defensive campaign and Government's intransigence prevented a real discussion of the issue.

Western political philosophers have been speaking to the benefits of local government for centuries, and most have taken the view that local government plays a key role in the health of civil society and the maintenance of democratic institutions.

In the United States, decentralised political power – as exercised by federal, state, city and town governments as well as a constitutional guarantee of checks and balances – is the chief characteristic of the American system of governance.

Over the past decade, the UK government has moved to modernise its democratic systems with devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a re-established London assembly and directly elected mayors in England. In fact, the empowerment White Paper submitted to the UK Parliament in 2008 – called "Communities in Control: Real People, Real Power" – says that in spite of these reforms, "power still remains too centralised and too concentrated in government".

The emphasis on local governance isn't just part of the Western democratic tradition. The historic pattern of development in many traditional societies, especially in Africa and Latin America, featured a preference for small, local governance structures. This was particularly true in Africa until the 20th Century. Now, organisations like the United Nations and the World Bank encourage developing countries, where democracy is a work in progress, to support citizen participation in neighbourhood groups and local grassroots community organisations. They understand that strong local voices often prevent the exploitation of a developing country's resources by a highly centralised government and its sometimes less-than-honourable leaders.

In the end, for whatever reason – and they're not saying – Government decided not to abolish the Corporations. Score one for democracy. But the proposed legislation will weaken the Corporation of Hamilton's ability to function by effectively reducing its revenue by at least 40 percent. (The Corporation of St. George is already broke, with disastrous results.)

A financially emasculated CoH will have little choice but to beg Government for an annual handout in order to retain staff and provide the services that Bermudians have come to expect in their capital city. In fact, the 40 percent reduction in revenue is about equal to what the 2009 CoH budget allocated for staff costs alone. Expect city taxes and parking fees to go up as well.

Changing the criteria for voting in Corporation elections will be a step forward for democracy and welcomed by the Corporations. But the Government has again missed an opportunity by not allowing for public discussion of the broader franchise issue before tabling the legislation.

The bill, of course, disenfranchises businesses and others whose vote depended on property ownership. There are those in favour of retaining the property vote, but others – who recognise that our Bermudian Corporations were the last holdouts among Western democracies to retain the practice – will be pleased to see it disappear. What a shame that those arguments – pro and con – may now only be heard on the Hill.

To the disappointment of many, Government has created a bill almost as notable for what it doesn't contain as what it does. Among the most important Corporation recommendations for reform was changing the governance structure of the institution to a mayor and an eight-member council, with staggered elections, providing for greater accountability for all members. Voting by proxy, a variation of the absentee ballot, was also recommended, but it is nowhere to be found in this bill.

In fact, there were myriad smaller recommendations, arising from detailed operating knowledge of the Corporations, that would have made the institutions more effective and responsive to the needs of the people they serve. These suggestions have been ignored. It's clear that Government's focus on reform is regrettably narrow.

When Parliament debates the Municipalities Reform Act 2010, it will most likely take place in an end-of-session, late-night meeting after a long day crammed with other legislation. Members will be asked to debate municipal reform without the benefit of proper consultation, public input or adequate time to consider the real issues.

It could have been different. It could have been a win-win situation for all. Government had three years to produce a comprehensive plan for municipal reform that best served all Bermudians, but this legislation is flawed.

Kathy Gibbons served as a Common Councillor on the Corporation of Hamilton from 2007 to 2009 and was chairwoman of the Corporation's committee on municipal reform.