IF ever you needed convincing, Mr. Editor, I've got it for you this week: three examples of how a better parliamentary system of transparency and accountability could bring about dollar and sense benefits for the tax-paying people of Bermuda - and we don't need to wait on PATI, aka Freedom of Information legislation, to get there.

Here's how and here's the three examples - in no particular order: 1. The King Edward VII Memorial Hospital and the recently unveiled plans for on-site redevelopment ; 2. The continuing, never-ending, unresolved but sad, sad saga of the Pro-Active/ Berkeley Institute/Performance Bond/contract; and 3. The new court/police building going up (or not) at the corner of Court and Church streets.

1. KEMH:

It should not have escaped your notice that the Bermuda Hospitals Board is now telling us that much-needed repair, maintenance and re-development can be carried out on site and that this is a far cry from what Government and the BHB first told us - insisted really - which was that there had to be a new hospital and it had to be built on the grounds of the Botanical Gardens. I recall the Estate Master Plan which was produced by the experts which came in volumes resembling in size the collected works of Charles Dickens, written I'm sure with the same pain-staking detail that Dickens employed, but not nearly as easy a read, which is saying something. But more importantly I can only think of the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, that may have been thrown away, trying to sell an idea the public wasn't buying and, as it turns out, could not afford. The original price tag for a brand-new hospital in the Botanical Gardens was over $500-million. The new plans are costed at only $315-million by comparison. Only $315-million: imagine! The truth is most of us cannot. But here's more to the point: I am thinking of how much money could have been saved if the idea of building a new hospital had gone out to the public for review, and comment, at a much, much earlier stage. Might have saved some precious time too. My hat's off to the BHB this time around and to the approach which they appear to be taking. I can't fault them for learning. Once bitten, twice shy. The Johns Hopkins review of the original plans, findings and costings are being shared at the conceptual stage, and meetings held with MPs on both sides of the House, mine included, as well as with stakeholders and neighbours, and more are promised as plans progress. We need to build on this now that we have seen the light and urge the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the House to take an active role in monitoring expenditure and developments on what will surely be one of the biggest, most expensive projects in a long while - and PAC's review meetings should not only be frequent but open to the public for all to follow along.

2. Pro-Active/Berkeley:

Frankly, there's no better example of why a close but independent eye should be kept on major Government projects. I don't bring it up just for the sake of scoring political points, although I will be accused of that in any event. How this project has been handled remains very much a live issue. Suspicions abound, legitimate questions remain. In fact, just when we thought we had heard it all, the project was the subject of yet another twist when former Premier Alex Scott revealed for the first time that Government's preferred contractors wanted off the job, but then turned around and sued for wrongful dismissal. We also learned very recently that Pro-Active not only lost their suit, but that Government was awarded $13-million in damages, along with a further $2.4 million in legal costs, in an arbitration involving public funds that was actually held and concluded behind closed doors. There should never be anything secret or private when it comes to public funds and this was a Government-funded project that was originally priced at $68-million, but at last report - because we still don't know the final figure - is estimated to have cost taxpayers over $125-million. It was also completed three years behind schedule.

The tale gets worse.

Government is apparently pondering whether or not it will even be able to collect on the award. We are told that Pro-Active may be declared insolvent.

This latest turns of events makes you also wonder what sort of contract was in place - in the first place. It also underscores the importance of that performance bond which was supposed to have been posted. But what's become of that? Who knows, Mr. Editor? Certainly not the Shadow: how could she? Police have only just completed a five-year investigation - five years! - into exactly what happened to the $700,000.00 Government handed over to Pro-Active at the start of the project - which was supposed to have funded the purchase of the performance bond and which was supposed to serve as insurance covering ten percent of the cost should Pro-Active fail to complete the job and/or fall behind and/or run over budget.

It's a tangled web that continues to unravel, slowly. But it's a web that should never have been woven in the first place.

Once again a vigilant, active Public Accounts Committee, meeting in public, and hearing from those in charge, and sharing the terms of the contract, could have kept the spotlight - and where necessary and appropriate, the heat - on a costly project and which, on hindsight, could clearly have benefitted from the transparency and accountability an on-going, open examination would bring.

3. New court/police building

Call me alarmist if you will, but this current job has all the makings of déjà vu all over again, Mr. Editor. This is a $78-million project that is already two months behind schedule, work having only started in January of this year. Not a good sign. It's also already $3-million more than originally budgeted which includes $66-million for construction, $6.9 for a construction management fee and a further $5.1 million for unforeseen changes.

Meanwhile, we learn that Government is sufficiently concerned that it has hired an outside, local consultant to now oversee the construction. Not a good sign.

We were also told last week in the House that the performance bond has also been scrapped and a retention scheme adopted instead. Questions from the Shadow (Pat Gordon-Pamplin) as to what percentage and how much have not been answered. Not a good sign.

I make the point again. An active and robust PAC, comprised, as it will be, of MPs from both sides of the House, can do the job that is actually required for this and all major works of the Bermuda Government: on-going oversight, and with it transparency and accountability through open meetings. It minimises the chances anything will fall between the cracks - literally and metaphorically.

We are told - and we believe - that we are facing challenging economic times.

We need to step up our game in Bermuda and the House on the Hill should be no exception - and the challenge clearly is to give the people a better system of government which could also save us dollars and cents, Mr. Editor.

What's in a name? Quite a lot. What's in a photo? Just as much, especially when you mix up names and faces which regrettably is what happened last week when we incorrectly identified the Clerk to the Legislature Ms. Shernette Wolffe as the new President of the Senate Ms. Carol-Anne Bassett. Our apologies to both and to JB the MP - Mr. Editor