OVER the last few days, Opinion has been looking at matters of government openness and transparency and, despite what the Policy Council says is its commitment to that principle, the lack of tangible progress in this direction.

Indeed, one of its ministers has recently gone the other way and he and his political colleagues now resolutely refused to engage with this newspaper.

Since the States has recently adopted the principles of good governance, one of which is that good governance means engaging stakeholders and making accountability real, Environment is arguably open to a code of conduct challenge over its unhelpful behaviour.

More significant for islanders, however, is that the political members of Environment believe that when their actions or the minister’s leadership is questioned it is acceptable to pick up the ball and flounce off.

The point is that – no matter how uncomfortable the criticism is – the basis for it exists and is shared by many readers, compounded by the minister’s own cheerful assertion that common sense isn’t part of the department’s remit when clearly it is.

If an officer can be criticised by a planning tribunal for too strict a definition of something then there is scope for flexibility and whether it is being exercised or not is ultimately laid at the door of the political board who between them draw close to £3,000 a week for overseeing the operation.

Yet as well as irritating its stakeholders over planning issues – and refusing to discuss them – the political board think it is above criticism to operate a cost-plus bus subsidy where the benefits are questionable and the burden on the taxpayer is guaranteed to rise.

More widely, Environment gives off an aura of being out of its depth and the communications ban on this newspaper is merely more evidence of that.

Nevertheless, it is bad for government as a whole because it suggests there is no support for elements of it that are struggling or even, as is being discussed in Frossard House, that Environment cannot cope with its wide-ranging mandate and should have it reduced.

Ultimately, Environment is doing a disservice to its own staff by failing to support them when legitimate questions are raised.