There must be some way to break this relentless, repetitive cycle we see played out each week on the Hill. That, Mr Editor, is the refrain I constantly hear whether by phone, by e-mail and/or out and about on the street — and often in response to columns I write, such as last week’s.

There will be no magic breakthrough, I tell them. Old habits die hard. Strong effort is required to bring about much needed change and, behind it, the will to undertake reform.

Of course, there is always the blame game to deflect and distract, but that’s not working out that well for us — or for them — is it? Checkmate. Stalemate.

People are rarely polled on the issue of better governance — it always seems to be about who do you like the best — but there is cause for disappointment, dissatisfaction and disillusionment. It is not that hard to understand.

Take last week, for example. Serious allegations of impropriety about Cabinet ministers are made in a court case which are in turn made public. They are vigorously denied (as “outrageous” and “unfounded” and “ludicrous”) and, we are told, they will be challenged and contested in court where the matter is being pursued.

We wait. A judge will rule in the first instance. The hope is that we will not have to wait long. People will want — and rightly deserve — a full explanation at some point on exactly what went on.

The allegations are out there and their publication casts a cloud over the Government and its efforts to move forward. They loomed large, for instance, in the debate of the Municipalities Amendment Bill — and for obvious reason; how ironic, too, that they should find voice in debate on legislation which purports to bring good governance to our two municipalities.

There is news, too, out of Government House, of a police investigation, and that, too, will have to run its course. Again, expeditiously, one hopes.

It wasn’t that long ago, either, that the OBA government crawled out from under Jetgate (not Deadgate) with a new leader, a new Premier, a new party chairman and a lingering sense that we never really knew what actually went down and why.

People rightly look to their leaders for answers. An election was fought and won on promises of more transparency and greater accountability.

It was surprising then when the minister for tourism declined under parliamentary questioning to disclose what incentives are paid to staff at the Bermuda Tourism Authority. He claimed confidentiality of terms of employment for a body that receives its authority and revenue from the Legislature to which they should answer.

Instead, he referred members opposite to their right to make PATI requests. Try that, they were told and let the Information Commissioner decide. A shame, really.

PATI is in its infancy, with statutory mechanisms for making and addressing requests that cannot, even with the best will in the world, be half as prompt as ministers can by answering questions straight up.

Let us hope that this will not become Cabinet practice and policy on PQs on the Hill. PATI is supposed to complement, not help stymie open and transparent government.

You have to wonder, though, after that recent ham-fisted attempt by another Cabinet minister who declined to answer PQs because the questioning Opposition MP had also exercised his rights to seek answers under PATI, a disclosure that was an apparent breach of PATI and which in turn prompted investigation — an investigation that remains outstanding.

There also remains outstanding the promised disclosure of the salaries of Bermuda Hospitals Board executives, which, we were told, will be revealed when the audited financial statements for the BHB are made public, now some three years behind and long overdue.

Questions and answers we need more of around here, and they should be facilitated, encouraged and welcomed. The value of parliamentary committees and public hearings should not continue to be overlooked. We have seen glimpses of the work that they can do through the recent work of the Public Accounts Committee. We need more. Even the Sage Commission lighted on the potential role they can play in bringing about greater efficiency and accountability: in fact, the commissioners recommended the establishment of three cross-party committees that could bird-dog (my words) the work of government ministries by keeping a watchful eye.

We have also seen, via television, how effective the committee system can be in the US Congress. It gives those who serve us the opportunity to explain themselves, publicly, and in turn to be held to account for their decisions.

Sure, it will be on a smaller, different scale here in Bermuda, but this is the start we need to make to change our existing political culture. Some hard work will be required, sure, but it does create opportunities for collaboration. It isn’t always confrontation and this, too, has been the experience in Washington with the committee system.

One reader referred me to the recent news in the Sunday New York Times about two members of Congress, Republican (on the far right) and Democrat (on the far left), who found sufficient common ground to co-sponsor an important bill in the contentious, hot-button area of healthcare. Sure, it took some time, and lots of effort, but in the end it breezed through Congress with an overwhelming majority and demonstrated what can be done when given the means to work together.

The lament there is that they could use more of this sort of bipartisan approach to problems.

The lament here, Mr Editor: why can’t we even have some?