Ps, Mr Editor, is an unusual way to begin a column. Postscripts are usually found at the end. But I want to begin this week with a follow-up to last week’s column.

Consultation does have its sceptics, critics and detractors — and I want to address some of what I have been reading and hearing in response.

Consultation: does it mean that the Government has to agree to everything everyone else puts forward? No, it does not. But it does mean it has to give people a fair opportunity to be heard and to share all of the information they have at hand. Like numbers. Like who stands to benefit and how this will help the Bermuda economy and Bermudians. The full Monty, no less.

Consultation: does it mean compromise? Could do.

In fact, compromise might well be regarded as a good thing when those in power find common ground with those who are in opposition or who disagree or have concerns. There is a lot to be said for having the strength — and political flexibility — to make unexpected adjustments or accommodations.

Consultation: does it mean giving in? No. It demonstrates not just a willingness to work with those who share different views, but to also respect and in turn value those who hold a different opinion — and often for good reason.

As a starting point, the offer of genuine consultation is a sign of good faith.

It is also the only way we as a community are going to stand any chance of working through some of the more contentious issues that divide us. Such as immigration reform.

We need to acknowledge the strength of those divisions, both racial and political, by giving voice to them in more meaningful, positive ways than we do at present.

Sitting around the table as equal partners — regardless of who is in power — is a very good start.

Will it work? Maybe. Maybe not. But I know this: it won’t if we don’t at least try.

This is more than just promoting a different style of government. It is a decidedly more consensual approach that is less decide-and-dictate and more inform-and-persuade first.

It is an approach that may usefully be employed with the proposed airport redevelopment. IF you ask me, it is starting to look very much like we are going to get a new airport whether a majority of people want it or not — at least according to the pollsters.

The most recent poll seemed to indicate a split in opinion — with a slight majority against. I expect that half of those polled don’t even know precisely what’s being agreed, but I won’t say which half. It could be both.

How could they know? The actual, full agreement remains a bit of a mystery.

One has been posted on the parliamentary website www.parliament.bm.

This has apparently been signed but lacks the appendices to which repeated reference is made in the agreement, but without which the agreement tells the reader very little. Go figure. Literally.

The finance minister has an explanation. When questioned about this in the House, he explained that the Government was not going to make that information, ie, those appendices, public. “Commercial sensitivities”, he is reported to have said in Hansard.

However, the airport is a major public asset and we are talking about public money; not to overlook the loss for up to 30 years of an important and valuable asset — and the revenue it might produce. How then can our legislators do their job and scrutinise and assess on our behalf?

Meanwhile, the successful developer has been announcing the selection of contractors and promising the unveiling of plans of what the new airport will look like.

It is looking more and more like a done deal: if it quacks like a duck. walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it must be a duck.

This is where our government, or more precisely our system of government, fails us — and we have seen this story before. Like a bad soap opera on rerun. By the time the opportunity comes to actually know and review and scrutinise, it may be too late. Ancient history, in fact — much like the subjects of past reports of the Auditor-General.

Remember, too, that this project started with a departure from financial instructions and featured a disagreement between the Financial Secretary and Accountant-General over the nature and the extent of any waiver of those instructions.

Let me conclude by being charitable, Mr Editor: the road to you-know-where is said to be paved with good intentions. But, on the other hand, if something looks too good to be true, it probably is — and at the very least is worthy of the closest possible parliamentary examination.