The fact that activist Gene Stilp wasn't successful in his effort to force Auditor General Jack Wagner to conduct a detailed review of how the Pennsylvania General Assembly spends about $300 million a year doesn't negate the fact that such an audit is a good idea.

On Thursday, the state Supreme Court ruled that Stilp, a former Democratic aide to the House of Representatives, lacks the legal standing to force the action by Wagner. However, the court said Stilp and others can ask the auditor general to conduct the audit in question.

A groundswell of public support for such an audit would be in the best interests of commonwealth taxpayers. The legislature's most recent audit found that it spent $308 million in fiscal 2005-06, which was up from nearly $283 million the previous year.

Meahwhile, the General Assembly's "continuing appropriation," a reserve fund consisting of money not spent from one year to the next, had grown to $215 million by June 2006.

That reserve money could be put to better use in the state's General Fund, or in some specific fund dedicated to easing the plight of Pennsylvania's needy residents.

The money also would be a welcome addition to the state's Rainy Day Fund, which was established to help the state weather tough times.

The "untouchable" reserve fund has been a prolonged, unhealing blotch on a legislature whose reputation suffered greatly as a result of the ill-fated July 2005 pay-raise vote and its big pension grab of four years earlier.

It is way past due for the General Assembly's spending to be accorded scrutiny beyond what it ever has been exposed to prior to now.

"The auditor general has been fighting me for 25 months on this case," Stilp said Friday. "And the person that's been fighting me for 25 months is not going to be asking the court for declaratory judgment to audit the legislature. It's a dichotomy and it doesn't make much sense."

In deciding that Stilp doesn't have the right to sue in regard to the audit issue, the Supreme Court avoided addressing the question of whether the auditor general has the power or duty to conduct such an audit.

Commonwealth Court previously had said delegates to the state's 1968 constitutional convention had left open the details of who would audit General Assembly financial accounts and that lawmakers filled that void two years later by establishing the Legislative Audit Advisory Commission.

In not ruling on whether the auditor general's office could or should audit the legislature, the high court compounded the error of the constitutional convention 40 years ago in not specifically addressing the issue.

The auditor general position is one of the state's row offices that are up for election in 2008. According to an article in Monday's Butler Eagle, Wagner intends to seek re-election.

This year would be an excellent time for state residents to voice the opinion that Wagner should be actively seeking to audit the legislature — going to court, if necessary, to get approval for that audit to begin.