Memo to Self:

"The trouble with most of us is that we would rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism." – Norman Vincent Peale.

Look here, Mr. Editor, I don't ask questions just for the purpose, despite what others may think to the contrary. But there is a purpose, of course. I am an elected member of the Legislature who happens to also be a member of the Opposition. It's our job to press and to probe, and I am aware that there are those who think we do not do it often enough and long enough (see below). We do not ask simply because we want to be in the know personally.

We do it on behalf of the people whom we think have a right to know, from a right to know what their Government has planned to how they are actually spending people's money. Case closed? No, not really. I have highlighted before how Government refuses to answer some questions, like those which I asked on the $800,000 municipalities' review, and how they get away with it.

The Coco Reef lease started out the same way. Minister for Education El James simply refused to answer questions which Opposition Shadow Dr. Grant Gibbons had posed. They were not particularly challenging, we thought. Why was the lease renegotiated? Will you table a copy for review? How much rent has been paid to date? What reimbursements? How many students have been trained at the hotel?

That was back in February, after we spotted that there had been a renegotiation which had rated but a short paragraph in the 2008/2009 Annual Report of The Bermuda College. There was absolutely no mention of any of the terms, including and particularly the fact that it had been extended to 125 years. Here's precisely what we read:

"In discharging its duties, the Board continued the protracted negotiations with Government over the Coco Reef Hotel property lease with the expectation that the matter would finally be resolved by the end of the academic year. The Board is indebted to the sub-committee for its painstaking diligence in helping to bring the matter to successful resolution."

Protracted negotiations? With Government!? A new lease maybe?

We had questions, the answers to which we thought the public should also know. So we asked them on the Hill of the Minister for Education who is also statutorily responsible for the Bermuda College and who, in turn, is accountable to Parliament for the actions and decisions of the Board of Governors whom he appoints.

We had heard not a dickie bird before this news. There had been no word of negotiations or of any revised lease in the annual Budget Debate, also in February, when we set aside a couple of hours to review the Bermuda College budget and the $20 million Government was going to provide for the current financial year.

Remember this was this February, 2010, and we only recently learned that the revised lease dates back over a year to May 4, 2009. You get the picture, I'm sure. There is a pattern here which apparently did not escape the notice of the Auditor General either. The people should know and the Legislature is the proper forum for sharing and for scrutiny. Transparency and accountability are not just words; they should be evidenced by actions too. The Auditor General made the point: The Bermuda College is a Government-controlled organisation funded largely by taxpayers and, as a consequence, its affairs, including the lease of its property, are subject to parliamentary oversight.

Calling all voices of Opposition

But there is a downside, I regret to say. No surprise here readers, if you've been following along. Our system of governance works like molasses going up the Hill. The Office of the Auditor General conducts its audit review and reports back to the House. That takes time. When the report does surface, the Speaker won't let us talk about it inside the Chamber. It must then go for review to the Public Accounts Committee of the House, which has its own challenges even meeting: quorums can be hard to come by, particularly when Government members decide they're not interested.

As far as I am aware, this Committee hasn't (yet) agreed to meet publicly either, so members of the public have no idea what's going on until they do report on the report, which is when we can then talk about it in the House, which can be years behind when we first started – shamefully but literally. Here's hoping they take advantage of the recent changes to the rules and vote to start airing their meetings.

In the meantime, we do what we can, including continuing to push for change. Often it isn't enough. We have our critics too, one of whom took the time to write to me this week to put matters in (yet another) perspective. It was an e-mail note back from GF:

"I still stand by my comments," he wrote, in part, "namely that the Opposition parties in Bermuda have to press the Government and Premier at every single opportunity and in all areas that affect the people of Bermuda, to expose the myriad ways in which this Government (and Premier) are failing the people of Bermuda (and Bermuda itself) and make crystal clear to the Bermuda people how and why you are a credible alternative for the leadership and governance of Bermuda.

"My main concern – even from 3,200 miles away (and not having lived in Bermuda for 30 years) – is that this Government (and Premier) are not acting on behalf of the interests of the people of Bermuda but rather in their own interests of maintaining power, which is inimical to good democratic governance. I think the people of Bermuda, in general, understand this. But to have any chance of change people need credible alternatives to represent them in Government. In my opinion, the Opposition must make their case for change clearer, and most particularly to show those people whose traditional allegiance is to the incumbent party in government why they should change their allegiance and to whom.

"I will therefore strongly continue to encourage all Opposition voices in Bermuda, including, of course, your own, to get their message across to the people of Bermuda, every day and by every possible way, that you (by which I mean the Opposition collectively) are working on behalf of the people's interests, and that any power you have at your disposal for the good governance of Bermuda comes only and exclusively as an extension of the people's bond of trust in you to govern them as they should wish to be governed."

OK, I get that picture too, Mr. Editor. Any others?

Reactions? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm.