Ask and you might receive, but not always on the Hill, Mr. Editor, especially when it comes to parliamentary questions. Readers who have been following along will know that I recently asked a set of questions about those consultants who have been hired to do a $800,000 job on the Corporations of Hamilton and St. George, which remain unanswered to this date.

The silence isn't just deafening. It's telling. The three questions – that's the most we are permitted to ask, in writing, at any one time – were pretty straightforward, I thought. There's a parliamentary style that must be employed in drafting each question that is pretty arcane, but is nonetheless followed if you want your questions to go forward. It was in this case and here's what I asked (using appropriate parliamentary language):-

Would the Honourable Minister (Walter Roban) please provide this Honourable House with:-

1. The names and address of all those firms that submitted proposals in response to the Request For Proposal of the Bermuda Government ("RFP") for the oversight, management and implementation of the integration of the Municipalities into the Government of Bermuda?

2. The details of each of the proposals received in response to the RFP, including the projected and/or estimated costs of each proposal?

3. The details of the accepted proposal of the successful bidder, Attride-Stirling & Wolonecki and McKenna Long & Aldridge, including the services they propose to provide, the total number of estimated hours to complete the RFP Project and the applicable hourly rate or rates?

They were for written answer on Friday, February 19. At the time of writing, I have still not even had the courtesy of a reply. That tells you something too. What I have heard is that Government is maintaining that the questions are aimed at eliciting information which is – wait for it – secret. I kid you not. Government is apparently looking to the Speaker to make a behind-the-scenes decision based on one of the rules that govern parliamentary questions which states: "A question shall not seek information about any matter which is of its nature secret."

Of its nature secret? Give us a break. It's $800,000 of the public purse they are looking to throw away here. I have looked again at the RFP. There was no promise of secrecy in the public advertisement. There shouldn't be any expectation of secrecy either. The bidders are doing business with Government, which is supposed to be of the people, by the people for the people. Hello? Anybody remember that? A blanket refusal to answer is not only unjustifiable, it's unwarranted and unnecessary. Inquiring minds want to know and inquiring minds are entitled to know.

Let me be clear too: I hold no brief for either of the municipalities, but like most reasonable people around here, I look askance at the sums of money that are being spent, and which will be spent, in what will almost certainly be a battle, which has been started by Government. Reform is necessary and it is way past due, but at what price in the current economic climate? I can well understand and appreciate a sceptical public which showed that it is against how Government is proposing to proceed in those recently published opinion polls. What was that pivotal expression in the States some years ago? It's the economy, stupid.

The Auditor General also made a very good point in his most recent report when it comes to Government expenditure that applies here. He pointed out that confidentiality and spending public funds are two concepts that simply do not go together, and that the Auditor General's right to know is grounded in both the Constitution and the Audit Act; and what the Auditor General knows is shared with the people through the Legislature. Memo to the Office of the Auditor General: sorry, but here's another job for you. How did they arrive at this figure of $800,000 and for what precisely? I'm not trying to create extra work, but the people should know how their money is being spent, especially in these tough economic times.

This isn't the first and only time Government has tried to run away from controversial decisions they prefer to cover up. The Coco Reef lease springs immediately to mind, and not just because it was the subject of a special investigation and report by the Auditor General, which revealed among other things the shoddy, inadequate terms of an agreement that deviated substantially from the tender on which everyone else bid. No, the Coco Reef lease also comes to mind because we recently learned in the annual report of the Bermuda College, which was quite properly tabled in the House, that new terms had been negotiated and a new lease executed, but that when the Shadow Minister of Education Dr. Grant Gibbons asked for a copy by way of a parliamentary question he was refused.

I do not know what lame excuse has been trotted out for the refusal. It can only be lame in light of:

¦ The legislative and public scrutiny that surrounded the initial lease, which was by the way, subsequently made available, but sadly only after the Auditor General published his scathing report in April 2004;

¦ The fact that the Bermuda College is a publicly-funded institution; and that,

¦ The Bermuda College Act 1974 forbids the Board of Governors from entering any lease without the prior approval of the Minister of Education who is ultimately answerable to the Legislature and the people for Board decisions.

Excuse me, but no one person or body should be exempt from public scrutiny where they are entrusted with public properties or funds. This much is clear, Mr. Editor: it isn't just the Corporations of Hamilton and St. George which are in need of reform.

Your thoughts? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm.

THOUGHT FOR THIS WEEK: "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies" – Groucho Marx.