Was $1,623 meal worth it?

So it “probably would have had been smarter” to have had appropriate expense-account guidelines in advance?

Darn right it would.

The Rivanna Water & Sewer Author-ity has been outed for having spent $1,623.04 on a single dinner with consultants at the Ivy Inn back in March. Another bill for a lunch at Hamilton’s came to $305.14 for five people. An estimated 20 people ate at the Ivy.

That works out to $60 per person for lunch and around $80 per person for dinner, on the two consecutive days.

After the agency’s finance director raised questions about the expenditures, officials decided to collect $225 “out of private pockets” to at least cover the estimated cost of the alcohol consumed at the two meals.

Good grief. How could anyone assume that spending nearly $2,000 in taxpayer money on schmoozing with consultants at high-end restaurants — in this time of economic recession — would be a good idea?

RSWA Executive Director Thomas L. Frederick Jr. said after the fact that “a fair lesson” had been learned. It “probably would have had been smarter” to have had written guidelines in advance concerning meal reimbursements.

Mr. Frederick came to the RSWA five years ago with 25 years’ experience in the public utility arena. We would have guessed that experience might have inculcated a bit more wisdom about expense accounts and use of tax money and public perception of waste.

Mr. Frederick defended the dinner as “very, very productive.” The consultants were in town as part of an effort to re-evaluate the costs of a controversial proposed dam expansion (more on that in a coming editorial). The project was so highly unpopular in some quarters, and the second round of cost estimates so unexpectedly high, that area citizens had virtually demanded a second look.

In bringing in the consultants — “three of the best dam experts in the world,” according to Mr. Frederick — the RSWA was complying with public expectations.

Mr. Frederick also said that the agendaless dinner — part business meeting, part social affair — was the best approach. He spoke about easing tensions among some of the consultants. And he said that the information gleaned informally at dinner would have cost $6,000 to $7,000 if obtained “on the clock.”

Now, graanted, relaxing off the clock with working partners can improve personal rapport, which in turn can improve the ease of doing business.

And chats over cocktails and dinner are the way business gets done in many cases, especially in private industry. But in government, such back-door approaches are fraught with peril. At worst, they serve as opportunities for secret dealing and for avoiding the sunshine of open government. Even if no such thing occurred, officials’ credibility can be damaged by public suspicion.

And then there’s the question of the appropriate use of public money. Offi-cials were spending the taxpayers’ money on fancy meals even as they were considering raising rates on customers.

Couldn’t RSWA officials have gained their goals without lavishing tax money on food and drink at two of the city’s more expensive restaurants?

Darn right they could.