WE'VE BEEN here before, you know. More times than most of us would like to count.

In 1992, then-Rep. Billy Boan had the Legislative Audit Council conduct an audit of the entire government.

In 1996, then-Lt. Gov. Bob Peeler oversaw Performance Audit reviews of select agencies.

We then had the heralded "performance review" process, undertaken jointly by the House and Senate budget committees, which would have been more impressive had it not focused on a single division of a single agency -- and one that a House ad hoc committee had just reviewed. This was followed by another review of that division by a panel named by then-Gov.-elect Mark Sanford.

And all along, the Legislative Audit Council kept pumping out reports about this agency and that -- sometimes prompted by scandal, other times prompted by someone's desire to find a better or cheaper way of doing things.

The nearly uniform use of the resulting reports: dust catchers. The one notable exception was at the Division of Motor Vehicles, where changes were made -- after nearly identical recommendations from the House review committee and the House-Senate review committee and the gubernatorial review committee.

And now here we are again, with a shiny new commission, ready to take on the whole government and, in 90 days, turn it upside down, infuse it, as its name suggests, with Management, Accountability and Performance.

And I'm excited.

(I'll pause for a moment to let all of you ask: Is she crazy?)

I'm excited because the governor is quite aware of the potential pitfalls. As he explained back in January, when he unveiled the idea, the problem isn't that we don't have good ideas for improving the way government works. The problem is that we never follow those ideas. His hope is that if we get some respected business leaders to make the recommendations, someone might listen.

I'm excited because the members of this so-called MAP Commission are quite aware of the potential pitfalls. In fact, avoiding the dusty-shelf treatment was the biggest message in their second meeting last week. Tom Schatz, who came in from Washington to discuss how his Citizens Against Government Waste had worked to implement recommendations of the federal Grace Commission, told the group that its success would depend on its ability to establish a continuing process, whether through a government agency or a private organization.

I believe avoiding dust-catcher status begins much sooner than that. It begins right now, as the commission decides how to approach its work.

If this panel hopes to succeed where others have failed, the most important thing it can do is make sure it doesn't look or act partisan or ideologically driven. If its recommendations are to be accepted, it will have to appeal to the right and the left.

The governor understood this when he appointed commissioners from across the political spectrum. (The best example: retired industrialist Samuel Tenenbaum, an influential Democrat in his own right who is married to the woman some expect will challenge Mr. Sanford's re-election.)

Despite the presence of Mr. Tenenbaum and others identified with the Democratic Party, last week's meeting occasionally felt like a gathering of an anti-tax group. That's an important constituency to tap into. But the panel also needs to be able to appeal to those of us who do not resent government, who do not mind paying our fair share of taxes, but who believe we can get the same out of government for less or more out of government for the same as we're paying now.

Commission Chairman Ken Wingate understands the need for broad appeal; he asked commissioners to look for racial, gender and geographic diversity when they put together task forces to help with the work. But he missed a huge opportunity when Barbara Rackes said, based on talking to people who assumed this group had an anti-government agenda, that commissioners needed to make sure they also considered political balance when appointing task force members. Mr. Wingate should have agreed and underlined her comments; instead, he changed the subject.

(Speaking of Mr. Wingate: The panel and its supporters would do well to resist the urge to call this the Wingate Commission; why invite people who aren't fans of his to dismiss its work?)

Navigating the politics isn't the only critical step in making this report relevant. After putting together a useful report, commissioners need to follow through on the rest of Mr. Sanford's vision: lending their weight to promoting their recommendations.

That's a step too few well-meaning people are willing to take. Fortunately, it's already on the radar screen. Mr. Wingate told commissioners it was "important for each of you to be in regular, informal contact with legislators you have a relationship with" as they do their work. The need to do that will multiply once they issue a report.

Business leaders working hard to come up with a plan and then pushing that plan through the Legislature is a model that can work. We saw it in the old PASS Commission, whose core members convinced the Legislature to pass the Education Accountability Act and then served as that law's first overseers. Their persistence made all the difference in getting a critical law passed and getting the process up and running.

If the members of this new MAP Commission can take us even half as far, they will do a great service for their state.