A quality of governance is judged not only by whether an action is legal. An important criterion is whether this action is moral and is best for those whose interests are purportedly being served.

The tests of good governance are often difficult and subjective, especially since the fruits of a particular action may not always be immediately apparent. But it certainly helps in determining what is appropriate action when behaviour is rule-based and is open and transparent.

In other words, when people in whose name and for whose benefit things are being done know what action is contemplated, they are in a position to declare before the fact on whether their interests are being served.

We are sure that persons, such as lawyer and public official Ms. Minett Palmer, understand these things, why she would support the many government initiatives aimed at ensuring an enhanced quality of governance and for taxpayers to be assured that they will get the best value for their money. Which is why we cannot understand Ms. Palmer's reasoning in the matter raised by Auditor General Adrian Strachan, with regard to payments worth $28 million to a legal firm in which she is a partner, by the Universal Access Fund (UAF) of which she was a board member.

The UAF was established by the Government, to be financed by a tariff levied on telecommunications companies landing international telephone calls in Jamaica. This levy is primarily to finance the delivery of computer-based education in Jamaican schools on a broadband platform. That is a grand idea which has the unequivocal support of this newspaper.

It is expected that the establishment of such a fund would have demanded complex legal work, especially in the circumstance where the levy was challenged by major American voice telephony carriers as well as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. Whatever work Ms. Palmer and her firm did may have been well worth the amount it billed the UAF.

But Mr. Strachan is right to raise, on behalf of Jamaican taxpayers, whether this was so in the absence, or at least none which he could find, of a written contract, with stated deliverables and specific fees. Nor was there, it seems, an open invitation to tender.

Ms. Palmer may have declared her private interest to the UAF, but we still think the approach to this arrangement was wrong. That might have been oversight on Ms. Palmer's part which, on reflection, she would probably wish had been approached differently.

What we, however, find baffling is Ms. Palmer's argument that the money in UAF belongs not to Jamaica, and by extension the taxpayers, but the carriers, to be spent on a project to which they agree. "That is why the carriers are on board," she said.

Which, of course, is to forget that these companies did not voluntarily agree to the UAF, but faced the levy under the force of law. Of course, we do not wish for the money in the UAF to be commingled with that in the Consolidated Fund, but that is another matter.

But even assuming, as far-fetched as it seems, that Ms. Palmer is right about the ownership of the UAF, that does not obviate the need for transparency.