Beyond the improbable existence of a secret eavesdropping or recording device, there is no way to verify all of the facts surrounding a Jan. 20 telephone call from Butler County Controller Jack McMillin to the county commissioners' office as he attempted to gain access to bids for the prison project.

What can be confidently said is that he should have accepted the fact that the commissioners were not in their offices at the time and that it would be unfair to expect non-supervisory employees to agree to his request without their supervisors' approval.

Certainly there are guidelines within his own office as to what his employees are and are not authorized to do. He overstepped his bounds in conveying to a commissioners office employee the message — which he verified as having said — that "ultimately, I might have to get a subpoena to get these documents."

The proper context for those words was in a conversation directly with one or more of the commissioners. He would even have been out of bounds if he had made that comment to county chief clerk Bill O'Donnell, who works closely with the commissioners but who does not have more power and authority than the commissioners.

Perhaps the commissioners office employees overreacted to the telephone call in having deputy sheriffs escort them from the office to their car at the end of that workday. No one beyond the people directly involved with the situation will ever know.

But it can be asserted that at no time should county employees believe that their well-being might be in jeopardy because of a disagreement between officials who ought to know how to avoid friction in their dealings with one another — and who ought to be willing to exercise a spirit of cooperation despite any previous disagreements.

That is what the taxpayers expect — indeed, demand — although that, unfortunately, often is lacking in the current version of Butler County government.

The commissioners' decision to send a letter to McMillin expressing their dissatisfaction over the unfortunate and troubling allegation or incident is an acceptable option. And, despite McMillin's claim that "I never said anything that could be construed as vulgar, intimidating or threatening in any manner" and therefore there was no reason to issue an apology, the controller would have calmed the public's perception of what actually took place if he immediately had expressed sorrow about the negative and threatening way in which his call was interpreted.

All of that said, however, doesn't relieve the commissioners of responsibility over what did or did not occur. Although the commissioners might regard McMillin as a thorn in their side because of the decisions he feels he must make in regard to his watchdog role in county government, they have an obligation to cooperate with his requests within the bounds of reason. Based on the information revealed in regard to the bids request, the commissioners acted incorrectly in not immediately providing copies of the opened prison bids to the controller when he initially requested the information.

McMillin can be excused for having been frustrated over the commissioners' apparent stonewalling in regard to his request. Awarding of contracts was scheduled to take place on Jan. 23, only three days after the call at issue.

The commissioners should have been willing to give McMillin — and any other county department head, for that matter — the information without hesitation or delay upon first request.

In McMillin's case, the controller raised reasonable points in regard to the commissioners' handling of financing for the prison project, which was included in a multi-purpose $50 million bond issue. On top of that, the commissioners spent several million dollars more than necessary — which will fall on the shoulders of taxpayers — by opting for the downtown prison site rather than building the facility on land the county already owned near Sunnyview Home.

With those facts in place, it was therefore within the realm of reason and his elected office for McMillin to want to examine copies of the bids submitted in order to satisfy any concerns he might have and allow him to raise a red flag if he felt there was cause for one.

The key word in this dispute is "copies."

Prior to the commissioners' official action of acceptance or rejection, McMillin wasn't entitled to the original bid documents. Those original documents should always be retained within the control of those authorized to act upon them — again, in this case, the commissioners — or others, such as the chief clerk, who are authorized to have temporary possession of them. However, once the bids are opened, the information contained within them becomes a matter of public record and therefore the commissioners had no grounds for denying McMillin immediate access to copies.

The entire situation is unbecoming of Butler County government, making it a laughingstock to outside observers but an object of concern for those required to pay the bills.

— J.R.K.