The critics of tribunals generally and the Flood tribunal in particular have had a busy week. To their complaints about cost, complexity and procedures, they have now added comments on the health and motivation of James Gogarty, the first witness to take the stand at the hearings in Dublin Castle.
Mr Gogarty claims to have seen Ray Burke receive £30,000 in 1989: it was the revelation which led to Mr Burke's resignation from the Cabinet and the Dail and to the establishment of the tribunal by the Oireachtas.
Now, according to a commentator in the Irish In- dependent, "the integrity of the Flood tribunal" rests on the credibility of Mr Gogarty, "a hard of hearing octogenarian in failing health".
The argument runs: "If Mr Justice Flood cannot trust his evidence, then Mr Gogarty will have wasted precious years at the end of his life and the tribunal will have consumed millions of taxpayers' pounds while eroding a cynical public's confidence in the procedures to make politicians and officials accountable."
The comment is one of several, written and broadcast, which may not have been designed to fuel the public's cynicism but almost certainly will have that effect.
Broadcasters asked, optimistically I thought, after the first day's hearing, whether "it's going to turn out to be a damp squib". To which the obvious answer is: wait and see.
The answers given, however, had more to do with lawyers' fees than with the tribunal's attempt to get at the truth - or the interests the lawyers are paid to serve.
Still, as in all cases where politics and business intersect and the stakes are high, powerful forces watch and wait and make their presence felt.
At Dublin Castle they are not only legally represented but, as the panel on Dunlop and Finlay agreed this week, less obviously by others who hope to influence the way in which proceedings and results are interpreted.
(Geraldine Kennedy reports on the activities and rich pickings of lobbyists on page 10 )
The Dunlop and Finlay discussion was one of the few in which the tribunal's affairs were set in the context of decades of corruption in planning, especially, but not exclusively, in the area covered by the old Dublin county council.
Elsewhere the nonsense about Mr Gogarty's age, health and motivation helped to obscure some highly relevant points of information - as Frank Connolly of the Sunday Business Post explained on Today FM.
In their rush to judgment, the critics of tribunals and accountability, of Mr Justice Flood and his staff and of Mr Gogarty's account of himself, chose to ignore much that had already come to light.
After some bluster about lines in the sand, and some fantasy about trees in north Dublin by Bertie Ahern, Mr Burke acknowledged he had been given £30,000 in cash by people he'd never seen before.
The money was handed to him at his home one night before the 1989 general election.
The donors were Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering. Mr Gogarty, who acted for them, was accompanied by Michael Bailey of Bovale Construction.
Mr Burke admitted he had been unwise to accept the donation when he eventually made his final statement to the Dail in the autumn of 1997 before retiring from the cabinet, the Dail and politics.
A company of the Fitzwilton group, Rennicks, confirmed last summer that its representatives had given Mr Burke a cheque for £30,000, made payable to cash, also at his home, apparently within days of the JMSE payment.
This, too, is being investigated by Flood, whose terms of reference were widened to include Rennicks and one of Tony O'Reilly's big Irish interests, MMDS.
Mr Burke, who was Minister for Industry, Commerce and Communications in June 1989, was reappointed to the Cabinet by Mr Ahern when the Fianna Fail-Progressive Democrat coalition was formed in 1997.
There are other allegations of payments to Mr Burke and of other payments, including one of £50,000, by other donors to senior members of Fianna Fail, including Padraig Flynn, then a minister, now a member of the European Commission.
IN his report on Ben Dunne's payments to politicians, Mr Justice Brian McCracken explained clearly and unequivocally how the practice should be viewed.
He found it "quite unacceptable" that a TD, and in particular a Cabinet Minister or Taoiseach, should be supported in his personal lifestyle by gifts made to him personally.
"It is particularly unacceptable," he wrote, "that such gifts should emanate from prominent businessmen within the State.
"The possibility that political or financial favours could be sought in return for such gifts, or even be given without being sought, is very high, and if such gifts are permissible, they would inevitably lead in some cases to bribery and corruption.
"It is also not acceptable that any person or commercial enterprise should make such gifts in conditions of secrecy, no matter how well intentioned the motives may have been."
The standards for those engaged in public life, first set by the Ethics in Public Office Act and the Electoral Act, are gradually being developed along lines suggested in or by the reports of tribunals.
And the role of tribunals, specifically Mr Justice Flood's, was covered by the Supreme Court's judgment on an application to have some of its hearings held in private:
"The exigencies of the common good require that matters considered by both Houses of the Oireachtas to be of urgent public importance be inquired into, particularly when such inquiries are necessary to preserve the purity and integrity of public life."
David Gwynn Morgan was surprised. He believed the case reflected "the tension between the interest of one individual in his reputation and . . . the authority of an impartial tribunal set up by the Oireachtas to go about its duties in the public interest . . .
"The unusual feature is that on this occasion the tribunal won."
In these quotations are phrases we don't often hear in the days of bottom lines, windows of opportunity and hidden agendas.
There's an uncommon ring to the common good, the public interest, the integrity and purity of public life. But this is what the tribunals are meant to protect and promote.
They wouldn't have been necessary if the conservatives of the Dail and Seanad had taken their own roles seriously. Yes, the tribunal's hearings should be broadcast. So should the sessions of the public accounts committee. Openness and accountability are good for us, the citizens, and good for politicians who work on our behalf.
By the same token, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would like to hear from the protectors of the common good and the promoters of the public interest who are supposed to be in charge of health, housing and agriculture.