Like constitutional change, one of the promises the Progressive Labour Party made in 1998 which did not inspire much debate was its plan to "democratise" the Corporations of Hamilton and St. George's through the introduction of universal adult suffrage in their elections.

There may be good reasons for this. First, the Government has had bigger problems in its first term in power than this. Second, the promise was easier to make than to carry out.

That's not because anyone can reasonably oppose universal adult suffrage. But it is far from clear whether it would also result in the disenfranchisement of owners of property in Hamilton who happen to live outside the city boundaries and pay the bulk of the city's taxes.

The other reason is that both Corporations have done a fairly good job of running the municipalities. With more pressing problems on its agenda, the Government does not have to rush to fix what ain't broke.

However, the current furore over who the next Mayor of Hamilton will be gives added ammunition to those who would like to see the current electoral system thrown out.

That's because Mayor Lawson Mapp's decision to go public over the "conspiracy" to oust him shed lights on the gentleman's club atmosphere in the Hamilton Corporation and shows why the closed door approach to governance does not work.

Mr. Mapp says he believed he had an agreement with the rest of the Corporation's officers to serve two terms. Now he has been led to believe that Alderman David A. White wants to run for the post and he is under pressure to step aside.

The reverse situation occurred in 1994 when Mayor Cecil Dismont had a gentleman's agreement to step aside and let then-Alderman William Boyle run for the office.

Mr. Dismont was criticised when he had a change of heart and ran again, thus setting up the first contested election for mayor since 1934, which Mr. Boyle went on to win.

Now Mr. Mapp says he will not run for another term, seemingly giving Mr. White a clear run at the top job in the city. This kind of public disagreement tends to damage the overall reputation of the Corporation.

That does not mean the Corporation should cover up its disagreements; quite the opposite. The problem with the Corporation is that too much of its business is conducted behind closed doors without accountability either to the city's taxpayers who elect it or to the general public that benefits from its services.

There's nothing wrong with contested elections; a real debate over the future of the City would be of real benefit to the whole community and everyone who lives or works in Hamilton.

Apart from elections, the time is long overdue when the Corporation should throw its meetings open to the public. The Corporation's continued refusal to do so only adds to the sense that this is a gentleman's (and now ladies) club where deals are made behind closed doors.

Indeed, the "gentleman's agreements" that decide when and for how long mayors should serve are just part of this problem. The mayor should be elected on the basis of ability and accomplishments, not because it is somebody's turn.

That's a good enough reason for Mr. Mapp to run again - it would result in some openness and debate on how the city should be run. And by opening its meetings, the Corporation would do something to show that it can be as effective and more democratic than it is now.

And that would give the current officeholders more ammunition if and when the Government carries out its democratisation plans - which might well result in all of the current members of the Corporation being thrown out.