Almost two weeks have passed since Renee Webb threw in the towel, with Cup Match serving as a useful distraction from the soap opera. But her resignation shouldn?t obscure the fact that no one has yet accepted responsibility for the handling of the Stonington lease, with Cabinet no doubt optimistic that Ms Webb?s unrelated resignation will nonetheless make the nightmare go away.

Almost a month after the Auditor General submitted his report and close to a year after initially broke the scandal, Government remains steadfast in either their silence or defence of the deal.

But there remains a subject, a tender one at that, which the Stonington lease scandal highlights. What should a fair tendering process entail? What are Government?s responsibilities and how much is the public entitled to know? Let?s start with the second question first.

What (and to whom) are Government?s responsibilities? At its most fundamental level Government should seek out the best deal possible for the taxpayer, with ?best? meaning a high quality of product at the lowest cost. Governments, however, also have a broader interest. They should seek to balance the financial cost with a social policy. The tendering of public projects can be an effective way to help break down economic barriers, increasing opportunity for those historically denied access. Adopting this approach increases the risk, but it is manageable. This philosophy must be coupled with a commitment to support the recipients to ensure success. The alternative, as we?ve seen with Berkeley, the BHC and other projects, is worse than not doing it at all.

Take the example of Pro-Active. A policy of economic empowerment involves more than the allocation of a multi-million dollar contract, at which point Cabinet can walk away, patting themselves on the back. The awarding process is the beginning not the end. Cabinet didn?t support their choice and now they shoulder as much of the blame for the reputational damage incurred as the company itself. Pro-Active?s track record almost guarantees that it?ll be unable to win future private sector contracts, rendering them totally dependent on the continued benevolence of Government. This isn?t the outcome a policy of economic empowerment should achieve. If the process doesn?t prepare the recipients to stand on their own in the private sector then it?s worthless.

The social responsibility defence has become a familiar refrain during this long wave of scandals. So is it true? Is the PLP Government exercising a new social responsibility to great resistance, are they incompetent in its implementation or is something else going on? The answer to this question can be found by looking into the third question posed earlier. How much is the public entitled to know?

The answer here is quite simple. Everything. Government assumes obligations and spends money on our behalf, not the other way around. We, the public, must completely understand what we?re being committed to. We shouldn?t have to rely on anonymous sources or special audits to enlighten us. The less we know the more we wonder and the hallmark of the current tendering process is secrecy and inconsistency. This exists for a reason.

We shouldn?t have to pry information from Government after a contract has been signed, but should be aware of the official tendering policy of the Government in advance. Openness is important not only to ensure transparency after the awarding process has been completed but it protects all parties by defining a process of who is eligible and what the expectations are on both sides. If a company can?t abide by this increased level of disclosure it shouldn?t bid on public projects. A detailed policy would prevent politicians and their cronies from plundering the public purse and then using economic empowerment as a convenient justification when scandal erupts.

A Cabinet confident in the integrity of the tendering process wouldn?t run from audits, refusing to divulge details. It would be anxious to reap the political mileage from a public pleased with a more inclusive approach to Government spending. So why the secrecy, why the spin, why the ?no comments? and why the lack of a specific policy statement on tendering? Because the tendering process is being mismanaged, misused and abused with economic empowerment used as a diversion.