Readers will know that last week the Commission of Inquiry started its work in earnest, much of it preparatory at this stage, Mr Editor.

I have had a decision to make and I have made it. I am going to stand down as a columnist and commentator for the duration of the commission’s deliberations.

There’s a lot of work to be done. But it isn’t just the work, it is the appearance, too, of continuing to write now that I have accepted appointment as a commissioner.

There is also the oath that I took upon appointment and by which I am bound that “I will faithfully, fully and impartially, and to the best of my ability, discharge the trust and perform the duties devolving upon me by virtue of the said commission”.

That said, readers will know where I stand on matters of governance and the need for reform, quite apart from the job with which the Commission of Inquiry has been tasked.

There is also this: there are only so many ways you can keep making the same points. The Commission of Inquiry presented me with a different but unique opportunity.

But the governance reforms for which I advocate are not unique. You may remember the Sage report? The commissioners touched on this issue a fair bit as well in their report — and on what needs to be done at the parliamentary level; to not only demonstrate leadership, but to develop a far more mature and competent system of oversight that provides far more meaningful opportunities for our legislators to work together and for the common good, ie, us, the people.

I have had quite a bit to say about that in recent weeks, prompted by recent events; so have others in return and by way of reply. No problem. Dialogue on the subject is good and welcome.

But let’s be clear here: no one is promising better results. There can be no guarantees. Ultimately, it will come down to what the respective political parties and their members are prepared and willing to do. Those in power have first crack at making it happen.

The appointment and selection (finally!) of the working group on immigration reform have all the appearances of a promising new start. I wouldn’t count on them — or everyone else, for that matter — singing Kumbaya at the end; unlikely, actually, given all that has led us to this point.

However, the difference this time around is that different views are brought to the table and thus, by that act alone, are given the respect and value they deserve. Wise decision-makers in turn are presented with the opportunity to make adjustments and modifications that reflect the broader community that they were elected to serve.

Let’s not lose sight of the role the general public ought to be able to play as well. Technology is making participation that much easier as well. Our legislators are always just a click away, as are the fruits of their labours for review and comment. I know, I know, some of you think I’m dreaming. But I am not the only one. Voters here, there and everywhere — hello Washington, London, Ottawa — are looking for new direction and civil dialogue when it comes to politics and politicking.

New means need to be pursued to bring an end as much as it is possible to unnecessary polarisation and polarisation’s cousins, namely, and chiefly: bitterness, anger and contempt.

It isn’t just about shuffling the deck, either. The Young and the Restless fans know only too well: you can change the actors, and frequently, but the plot continues and the characters remain the same.

In closing, I am reminded of comments I recently read but cannot remember where. It was about choices, the difficult choices that governments must make. It went something like this:

You can do the right thing. Or you can do the thing that serves your community’s interests best. That, too, Mr Editor, is doing the right thing.