As the Broadcast Commission gears up for a hearing into an allegedly political broadcast using public funds, no one's too surprised that the public has been denied full access to the proceedings.

But there is a fair amount of disappointment at the Commission's decision last week. The hearing will decide whether a February address to the nation by Premier Jennifer Smith was a political broadcast and contravened regulations.

Representatives of the Opposition United Bermuda Party (UBP) argued for media access, which was opposed by the Government side.

Deliberations lasted for over three hours and the complaint will be heard tomorrow.

"I think it's fair to say that Government felt the media could not be trusted to give a fair and accurate report of the hearing," said The Royal Gazette editor William Zuill, who, with ZBM news director Jim McKey attended the preliminary hearing to push for public access. "It's a little bit like not building a house because there might be a fire." It also appeared that the Commission did not want to set a precedent, he added.

Mr. Zuill said he was disappointed but not surprised at the Commission's decision - made by just three out of a total of nine board members.

But he promised: "It won't be the last time we try to get hearings like this opened up."

Three of the commissioners did not take part in the vote because of a conflict of interest. The request to open up the hearing was initiated by VSB news director Chris Lodge and backed in written submissions by Bermuda Broadcasting Company as well as The Royal Gazette.

"We believe, particularly with an election likely to occur within the next 18 months, that a full airing of the views of both parties on the question of what constitutes a political broadcast and what constitutes a Government broadcast would be of great assistance to the public and in furthering democracy in our community," said Mr. Zuill in his written submission.

Tom Vesey, former editor of the Bermuda Sun, says that the commission's "outrageous" decision is just part and parcel of Bermuda's penchant for "casual secrecy" over matters of public interest.

"There's far too many things in Bermuda that are closed to the press - which means closed to the public. You've got so many things in Bermuda that would be public in other countries like planning decisions. The most outrageous is the Corporation of St. George's and the Corporation of Hamilton. For all I know they could be meeting naked and passing big bucks between themselves... I'm sure they're not but we have no way of knowing."

He added: "We've got far too much tolerance for casual secrecy. And the argument for this is it's convenient.

"I'm assuming the Government doesn't want publicity because they are afraid they'll lose and be embarrassed," Mr. Vesey continued. "But that's no reason for the Broadcast Commission to make the decision they did. And in matters like this, if there's no publicity the whole thing's meaningless. In effect it's a debate on what standards of behaviour the people expect from their politicians. The people are part of the debate - It's their money and just as importantly, perhaps more importantly, what's being debated are the standards of behaviour the people of Bermuda want from their politicians. It could be that the people think it's great for Government leaders to spend a whole lot of money glorifying themselves but I doubt that."

The Broadcast Commission has already ruled against the Government in a similar hearing in 1999. Broadcast commissioner Tim Marshall said he would not comment on the reasons why the commission decided not to let the press in on the hearing because the parties involved had not yet been informed.

BBC chief executive Rick Richardson said: "I would always fight for an open hearing. I came out of news so I'm always looking for that kind of latitude. There should be transparency."

Works and Engineering Minister Alex Scott, argued against opening the proceedings. But he would not comment on the deliberations or speak generally to the issue when contacted last night.

"There is no argument and no comment," he said. "Because it was agreed the whole event would be in camera."

Attorney General Dame Lois Browne Evans who was also present at last week's hearing could not be reached for comment.