Opposition MP Trevor Moniz's claims that Parliamentary Registrar Sabrina Phillips' job was not advertised and that she was not qualified for the job have been proven to be incorrect, as just a little research would have shown.

Mr. Moniz has, rightly, apologised to Mrs. Phillips and her family for any embarrassment he may have caused. He has, however, stopped short of withdrawing his claim that Premier Jennifer Smith handpicked Mrs. Phillips, notwithstanding that Mrs. Phillips says she only met Ms Smith several months after she got the job. That Mr. Moniz was wrong on the other points must make his other claims less credible.

It has also distracted from what could have been a worthwhile and badly needed debate on the whole question of Civil Service appointments.

Two years ago, the Premier announced a Civil Service Reform paper which remains a deeply guarded secret. In the meantime, an ad hoc and confused system of Civil Service appointments has taken its place.

Traditionally, civil servants have been given an edge over applicants from outside the public service for vacant positions. In Mrs. Phillips' case, some 20 other people applied for the position, although it is not known how many were from within the Civil Service. But if a qualified candidate from within the Civil Service did apply for the job, it would be in the public interest to know why Mrs. Phillips was considered to be the superior candidate.

That is not to say that people from the private sector should not be brought into the public service - they should - but there needs to be a clear policy and those people who do want to make the public service a career need to know if they will advance and move ahead if they merit it.

The row over Mrs. Phillips has has also confused rather than clarified the broader, and arguably more important, question of voter registration under the new election system.

The Parliamentary Registrar's office says that the voter's list is 95 percent accurate and that a re-registration now might well result in a less accurate list.

The United Bermuda Party says that the 95 percent claim is very optimistic and that its canvassing suggests that as many as 15 percent of eligible voters are in the wrong constituencies or are not registered at all.

Acting Parliamentary Registrar Randy Scott says the UBP's numbers are incorrect and that some of the voters are ineligible, although it is far from clear from his letter whether that is because they are ineligible to vote, or have simply not bothered to register at all.

If the latter is the case, then that is all the more reason to look seriously at a re-registration. The argument that that is the duty of the political parties' scrutineers and not the Parliamentary Registrar is simply ducking responsibility.

The abolition of annual voter registration may have eradicated the problems and inequities associated with varying levels of voter registration from one year to the next. But that is no good if changes in voter status, whether as a result of people coming on the voting register, moving from one constituency to another or, God forbid, dying, are ignored.

Every effort should be made to ensure that the handling of the the first elections held under "one man one vote of roughly value" is above reproach. The ongoing questions about voter registration are sowing seeds of doubt that that will be the case.