There's a problem with the attorney-client privilege argument when it's applied too broadly to government work.

At some point, the "client" — who, in the case of government, is all of us — is done more harm than good by information withheld.

By pursuing more documents related to the state's handling of the Superferry project, The Advertiser is arguing that this point has been passed. The Lingle administration is not keeping the public interest top of mind by seeking to exempt itself from open-records laws.

Documents include e-mails from late 2004 from a deputy attorney general assigned to the project that discuss an environment review.

Although other documents have been released, the administration has withheld requested e-mails documenting lawyers' discussion of a key question: Was there strong legal justification for exempting Superferry from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement on its interisland service?

The courts ultimately ruled that the exemption lacked legal basis; a special law was passed allowing Superferry to operate while the EIS is done.

None of that makes the basic question moot. The taxpayers still have the right to know how the administration arrived at its decision to exempt the project, particularly since the court battles were waged using their dollars.

The administration's response to the petition so far is that the documents requested all can be excluded because of attorney-client and executive privileges.

The arguments made in defense of the privileges are generic. The state does have a right to closed discussions with lawyers, and making some other discussions public might deter private parties from doing business with the government. In reality, it's impossible for the state to do the "people's business" with people looking over the state's shoulder at every moment.

But does the privilege apply to all these e-mails? Really?

Governor, you'll have to excuse the voters if they want more specifics on that.

This is why it's necessary to persist in the fact-seeking mode, and The Advertiser is asking the state Office of Information Practices to evaluate whether that privilege should fall over the documents like a blanket, or whether individually specific documents could be released.

Already, The Advertiser has an e-mail from a transportation engineer, citing a state lawyer who wanted the environmental study. So it's reasonable to ask: What reason did the administration have to favor the exemption, risking extra costs and potential liabilities for the state?

The answer to that would shed light on the administration's environmental policy, which will guide decision-making on many other projects affecting quality of life in the Islands.

And it's an answer Lingle and her staff owe to those who put them in charge.