Butler County Commissioner James Kennedy put forth the right logic when he suggested that if a county job has been vacant for an extended period of time, then that position must not really be needed — and should be eliminated.

Eliminating such a position would negate the need to budget money for it, allowing that money to be saved or used for other purposes.

However, county taxpayers who on Thursday read about the discussion dealing with Kennedy's proposal to eliminate six county jobs that have remained vacant for six months or more must be puzzled — or even troubled — about how their county government operates.

On the one hand, Kennedy deserves praise for bringing up the issue. Not filling the jobs but having to budget money for them is tantamount to concealing money within the yearly spending package that, if not spent, will be added to the year-end fund balance.

Depending on the pay and cost of benefits associated with these six jobs, that money could represent a significant portion of a mill of taxation.

The comissioners already have indicated that another tax increase is likely for 2007. If in fact necessary, that hike must be kept to the least amount possible.

On the other hand, Kennedy's refusal to divulge the positions that he feels should be eliminated, or to provide an estimate of the money those positions involve, raises an important question about how Butler County government operates. That question is: Does it always try to operate in the taxpayers' best interests?

"If I told you what they (positions) were, they'd be filled between now and our next meeting," Kennedy said.

With that statement, Kennedy was implying that department heads in charge of those positions could not be counted on to be fiscally responsible in regard to them. That's a serious implication about which taxpayers should be dismayed.

Commissioner Glenn Anderson expressed the opinion that since the jobs — whatever they are — are vacant and no salaries or benefits are being paid out, the positions should be kept so they don't have to be re-created if they are needed.

But having to do that wouldn't be difficult; all it would take would be a motion and vote by the salary board.

Eliminating the positions now would reduce the temptation to fill jobs that have been proven not to be essential.

County taxpayers are deserving of that consideration by the salary board.

Commissioner Scott Lowe abstained from voting on Kennedy's proposal because of Kennedy's failure to provide specific information. All considered, that was a reasonable reaction, coupled with the fact that when the discussion took place, the commissioners were acting in the capacity of the board of commissioners, not the salary board.

Kennedy said later that he would raise the issue again when the three county leaders meet as the salary board on April 5. At that time, he should provide a complete list of the positions in question, their salaries and the cost of benefits.

And, he should disclose if and, if so, what department heads have filled — or were attempting to fill — any of the positions since he raised the issue.

County taxpayers deserve a true picture of their county government's needs and fiscal operation and the assurance that the right decisions are being made on spending their money.

In this instance, since the affected departments have shown they can operate without the workers in question, those jobs should be cut.

On April 5, county taxpayers will get a glimpse of how committed their county government is to saving money.