Blogs › The Cocklebur

Preston vs Wilson exposes gaps in how we account for the cost of government services

Posted December 27, 2007

I've opined a lot on my disgust with the Preston-Wilson saga, which to me has betrayed the trust of good people everywhere in their belief that government and its elected representatives are there, above all, to serve us. But I am going to confess to being plenty interested in what the S.C. Supreme Court will decide regarding Anderson County's refusal to release legal expense vendor files as it relates to the state of play regarding public information.

When the case first started on its way, I was a reporter, and I remember my exasperation over the decision to spendwaste money to split hairs over whether the description in a billed expense was attorney-client privileged. Whatever the legal outcome, I reasoned that most law firms and local governments would very quickly change their billing practices so that any sensitive information would be purged from invoices. Public information/public money 0. Lawyers. 1.

I still believe that will happen. But I am curious whether the Supreme Court touches on an area I've always wondered about: How can anyone, let alone the public, evaluate whether money was legitimately used if there isn't any specific supporting documentation to "backup" an expense? The issue of backup has come up again in the recent spat over credit cards.

I think it's highly unlikely that sensitive information ever has to be exposed for lawyers to provide a clear performance/action-based accounting of their time...

With the uptick in consulting contracts, service contracts and other non-bid-based, non-tangible "costs" invoicing truly does become a whole lot more significant than it used to be in ensuring that taxpayers can discover what their money is paying for. Don't you think?

If you don't have an Independent-Mail.com account, register here to comment on this and all Independent-Mail blogs.

Discuss your own topics in The Cocklebur Forums