It seems like only yesterday that a jury allowed a former football star free to walk out of courtroom in Los Angeles. Now a judge in British Columbia has ruled the governing NDP did not intentionally fudge the numbers in the 1995 and 1995 budgets, and that the politicians and political staff involved were "sincere" in their opinions as regards the optimistic budget numbers. That sincerity came despite a year and half's warnings from senior civil servants that the 1995 and 1996 budgets would likely both be deficits, the latter a significant one.

The judge is entitled to her opinion. Clear-thinking citizens are also entitled to theirs. I thought that the alleged budget fraud would be rather easy to prove in court, but that making three MLAs not involved in the budget process, legally responsible, might be the tough part.

In her judgment, the judge pointed out that the revenue forecasts were within a range of two percent, while actual results sometimes range as much as four percent. Well, the important point surely is that Finance staff repeatedly warned key cabinet ministers about the tanking economy. The other crucial point is that those same officials already had a range of estimates. If then Premier Glen Clark and his political staff wanted to impose additional higher estimates of revenues upon competent and expert public servants, when those same bureaucrats were telling the politicians that revenues were quite likely to be significantly lower - what's the point of having knowledgeable Finance officials

Regardless of the verdict, David Stockell deserves applause for acting on his convictions and on his outrage. In so doing, he defied the stereotype of Canadians being an apathetic lot.

The fallout from the court case should cause British Columbians to ponder about the problem of accountability in modern Canadian politics. Power is simply too concentrated in very few hands (really only that of the premier of the Prime Minister and their staff) for too long of a period. No matter what is done, sincere or not, the elected representatives who possess such power can act with impunity between elections. This is unlike Canada's mother Parliament in Britain, where Members of Parliament are far more independent than Canadian MPs or MLAs. It is also unlike the United States, where institutional separations of power between the presidency and the two branches of Congress make it almost impossible to carry on without serious oversight and compromise.

British Columbians need several reforms to the political system and ones that do not require constitutional change (or they'll never happen.) Stronger citizen initiated referendum laws (the current law will never work) so citizens can pull a lever if politicians consistently ignore their concerns; stronger recall laws to allow citizens to keep representatives in check when abuses demand an accounting; and some type of electoral reform that would give more than just a minority of cast votes 100% of the power for five years. I prefer run-off ballots, others will argue for proportional representation, but something other than the current system is certainly worth trying for a period.

As for the verdict in this case and the claim that it shows the government MLAs really were honest in their 'sincere' defense of the pathetic budget numbers, well, Johnny Cochran, call your publicist - you've got competition.