FROM Obama to Oh Baby, and back to reality in Bermuda, and the opening of Parliament, Mr. Editor, the annual traipse down the Hill to the tented Cabinet grounds, with a dollop of pomp and a dash of pageantry, a longer than usual Throne Speech with longer than usual comments by the Governor, then back up the Hill for the start of a new session which doesn't really, actually begin until the following Friday (today) when debate commences after the Reply to the Throne Speech, and blah, blah, blah.

The tradition continues ¿ although I have to tell you that there may be less blah - but possibly more blather - when it comes to congrats and obits from now on. Congrats and obits? That quaint custom and feature of the House on the Hill which allows members to remember constituents and friends, as well as the occasional outstanding member of the community, either living or recently deceased, but only for up to three minutes in total. Per member. The Speaker actually has a timer too, that sounds off when the three minutes are up. He has to keep a close check on these things: three times 35 members totals over one hour and a half - and even longer if the Speaker speaks, which he rarely does, but sometimes will. He has friends and constituents too, you know.

The length of time congrats and obits can take is one problem, along with the fact that this period of time on the Order Paper takes precedence over parliamentary questions - and answers, one hopes - and the introduction of legislation. It also comes before we take up the business of the day.

The other problem is this: someone has to record names. It isn't a machine. It's a member of the legislative staff. These initial notes are for the House minutes: who remembered whom and for what.

Letters have to then be typed up - contents and addresses to be supplied by members who did the remembering - and sent out over the Speaker's name.

You can imagine the numbers of letters that have to be typed up. Or maybe, you can't: how many names could you mention in three minutes? Multiply by 35. You start to get the picture. It has been making for overload and backlog in the administrative offices on the Hill.

Something had to give. Something did and it won't be the staff. The Speaker told MPs shortly after their return that the Rules and Privileges Committee of the House - and here I declare my interest: I am a member, still - has agreed that legislative staff can be more usefully employed than doing this correspondence. Members are now going to have to roll up their own sleeves and type up their own letters from here on in. They will still go out on House of Assembly stationery, which will be supplied, and over the Speaker's signature.

Stay tuned though. Rumbles have already begun among some unhappy members.

What I'd actually like to hear are more rumbles about congrats and obits, period, quaint though it might be. In the Upper House down the Hill, aka the Senate, this part of their agenda comes up at the end of the day, after the business of the day has been dealt with.

How sensible. Up the Hill in the House we call Lower, congrats and obits can also be effectively (ab)used to thwart oral questions: any questions set down but not taken up one hour after we start, are reduced to written answers and lost is the opportunity for follow-up questions and a potentially lively exchange on issues of importance.

We are still a ways from meaningful reform.

But we can continue to be audacious, Mr. Editor, and hope that the small change lead on to bigger. Some push is required too.

The opening up to the public of meetings of the Joint Select Committee on Educational Reform was a breakthrough. Of sorts.

The Public Accounts Committee should be next - followed by all committees of the Legislature, up and down the Hill.

This isn't just John Barritt speaking for the sake of speaking (although I acknowledge that I am writing, and write a lot, about this); nor is this only the cause of an unhappy Opposition (although we are that too).

That committee hearings should be public is pretty standard throughout the modern world and is one of the many recommended benchmarks for democratic legislatures promoted by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which Bermuda is a proud member (I think) and whose conferences we attend regularly (I know).

I listened very carefully last week in the House when the Premier voiced his displeasure over the report of the U.K. Foreign Affairs Committee. He was reporting on his recent trip to London and his attendance at the annual meeting of the Overseas Territories Consultative Council and professed to have been "extremely puzzled that the Report made little reference to the elected Government's position on most issues but seemed more sympathetic to the Opposition's cause."

Actually, I thought the Report was quite tame. No surprise there, I suppose. But the cause which the UK members advanced in the Report was not the cause of the Opposition, nor was it - and the Premier is right on this - the cause of Government. They are simply trying to encourage us - tame word: pressure us too, would also be correct - to fall in line with modern parliamentary practice in which accountability and transparency are not just words to be mouthed from time to time, but goals for which the necessary mechanisms must be put in place. Open committee meetings is but one - and it was one of the FAC's stronger, if not their strongest recommendation.

We are long overdue.

Apparently, we are not alone. I read with interest in a recent CPA newsletter of recent developments with respect to their recommended benchmarks.

They had another meeting on the subject in September Down Under looking for ways to strengthen implementation. We are told that they have developed plans "to encourage Commonwealth Parliaments and Legislatures to measure their procedures and practices against the CPA benchmarks". Interesting. I look forward to a local audit. Not so interesting perhaps, was the news that the Association is also planning to promote "the development of regional variations on the benchmarks" which were initially drafted by, as you will recall Mr. Editor, a CPA Study Group in Bermuda in late 2006 (which I had the opportunity to attend). Let's hope variations don't amount to claw back on principle. Now that would be audacious.

Speaking of Obama, like me Mr. Editor, you may have received a copy of the email making the rounds earlier this week, a story from the Sunday Observer and the scoop therein that the President-elect will be following through shortly with plans to crack down on "international tax havens", Bermuda included. There's money to be raised for the financial stimuli they are looking for in the US.

As I said at the start, it's back to reality - and the future. Whether we've done enough to date in Washington is open to question. Our economy could be at stake. We've got work to do. It is too audacious to hope for a fine bi-partisan effort on this our new western front, Mr. Editor?