The publication of the contents of the Auditor General's first report into the Bermuda Housing Corporation in yesterday's Royal Gazette gives some insight into the collapse of management controls within the organisation.

Some of what was contained in yesterday's newspaper had already been reported, but the report confirmed those stories and showed just how deep the problems were.

Clearly, normal accountability in the BHC went out the window and was replaced by a system - if such a word can be used - that could have been custom designed for abuse.

Former Housing Minister Nelson Bascome can take some succour from this report as it seems to clear him of virtually any deliberate wrongdoing. On the other hand, he is guilty of apparently vacating his responsibilities, as did the board of the Corporation. And that is almost as grievous an act, albeit of omission rather than commission.

As for current Housing Minister David Burch, the report demonstrates why he is keen to go after contractors who got away with double billing, quotes and bids that clearly meant nothing and so forth.

And clearly, as he admitted again yesterday, the problems within the Bermuda Housing Corporation were very severe and for that reason, $10 million has been set aside as a contingency - a sum that is even greater than the Auditor General's report suggested.

Mr. Burch has also stated, both yesterday and beforehand, that the problems revealed by the Auditor have been rectified. But he had not given any details of just how severe the problems were to begin with. With the publication of this report, that has now been done.

Nor did Mr. Burch go into any detail on the conflicts of interest that arose between Government officials and the BHC or what was being done to rectify them; only yesterday, when the report was made public, did he agree that interests should have been declared. It can only be assumed that this is now done as a matter of policy.

By publishing the report, the public now knows the depth of the problems and can hold the officials entrusted with its care accountable. That is as it should be.

The Royal Gazette knew very well that it would be accused of attempting to influence the outcome of the General Election by publishing the details of this report.

One alternative would have been not to publish it at all. But that would not serve the public well given that this is the public's money and welfare that is at stake.

The other alternative would have been to wait until after the Election. That would have left the newspaper open to the same accusation that Mr. Burch made yesterday. This time it would have been the Opposition claiming that this newspaper buried the story to help the Government. Either way, the newspaper loses.

So rather than worrying about who may nor not be aggrieved, the normal standards of journalism come into play. And that is that the public should not be deprived of information that is accurate and in their interest.

We are satisfied that the stories published yesterday meet both of those conditions.