Disappointing, Mr Editor, is just one of the words that comes to mind (there are others) — and on so many fronts. First, it took ten weeks to produce the report. Ten whole weeks. It should never have taken that long and the blame here doesn’t fall entirely to the party chairman. The people who knew what was what were in the OBA caucus. They only had to tell each other and the party chairman what went on. I think we all thought that would have happened at the outset.

Secondly, and this cannot be overlooked or ignored, the events that led to the investigation and report brought about the resignation of the OBA leader who just happened to also be the Premier of Bermuda.

This was and is a serious matter – on any view.

Sure we had something of an explanation at the time from the Man Who Stepped Down in the Middle of the Night. He had done nothing illegal, he said. Instead, he told us: “there was a failure over time to be completely transparent. This is a fundamental component of good governance and a core principle on which the OBA was founded.”

Transparency is key. Whatever it was he had failed to be transparent about was enough to cost him the support of a majority of his colleagues, if not all of them. We don’t know for sure (yet). But whatever it was, it apparently wasn’t thought egregious enough to warrant (further) personal explanation, apology even, in the House where the record incidentally to this date has not been corrected.

So those of us on the outside looked to the report to help fill in the gaps. We were not told that campaign finance wasn’t any of our business. On the contrary it was made our business. We were promised “a full fledged investigation ….” and … “full disclosure of what we have been able to uncover.” So far not much, you say? Well, let’s not be too harsh. While you may well think that the elephant laboured and brought forth a mouse, the mouse talks. The report was revealing, if not for that on which it did report, for that on which it was unable or failed to report.

How so, in summary:

•The scope was, by frank admission, limited. The party chairman “[did] not pursue the actions of Cabinet Ministers”. This was said to be the responsibility of the Premier and the Ministerial Code of Conduct. Oh.

•The investigation was able to verify that the donations in question were made but unable to determine their ultimate destination, save and except that withdrawals were “reportedly made to pay the grassroots campaign workers”. For such things as, we were told, constituency drops, signage and “the team on the ground”. Hmmn. That’s a lot of money for drops, signage and a team on the ground. What no receipts?

•But, hang on, as to where the money actually ended up we were told that there could be no independent verification: “Tertiary accounts are beyond the purview of this investigation and personal accounts are not available to this form of inquiry”.

•There was an account which was specially set up for the $350,000.00 which was received but “[it] was not authorised by the established protocols of the OBA.” Another tell.

•We also learned that the Party executive didn’t even know of the existence of the account until 18 months later: “it is still not clear as to why a separate account had to be established that the Party was unaware of and why these funds could not be transferred to the OBA’s Operating Accounts”. That’s a startling admission for a party chairman to have to make, but make it he did, to his personal credit.

•Mind you, the party chairman also told us he was not involved in the running of the campaign “by design and it appears now by intent.” Ouch.

•But curiosity was really piqued when at the end of his report the OBA chairman told us, cryptically, that during his investigation he discovered “other matters of equal concern”, but stopped there explaining that this was outside his remit. This, Mr Editor, would appear to take us right back to where they started.

It can only leave people wondering: what else? what next? As has already been said, the report raises more questions than it provides answers and, if the past is any indication, we might expect to learn more in the coming days as ‘players’ in this debacle jockey for position.

Sure party campaign finances are not subject to regulation (although that may soon change – and should: check out the Turks and Caicos for example and what they have done in smart order), but on the other hand the OBA promised transparency on this and, one might reasonably presume, accountability, transparency’s twin when it comes to better governance.

The promise was of course to their credit, arguably it helped them win an election, but it is delivery voters are now looking for.

It’s not surprising that in light of what was found the party is promising to tighten up on its administration, practices and procedures. Members and donors will be pleased to hear that, I am sure. It will presumably also put an end to what appears to have been a party acting within a party, at least when it came to the election campaign. But for the general public, what may be surprising is that only one person has paid the ultimate price, so far – and of all the players involved, the last person the public would have expected to resign is the OBA party chairman himself. Go figure, but stay tuned. It’s not one of those cases where nobody knows nuffin — and people are talking.

PART 2 next week Wednesday.