The Butler County commissioners sometimes do not agree with opinions put forth by Controller Jack McMillin, who is the county's elected fiscal watchdog. Some people might perceive that the commissioners don't agree with McMillin most of the time.

But the commissioners should have stood up in McMillin's defense on Wednesday when the controller was threatened with a lawsuit by the county's bond underwriter, Greg Zappala of JP Morgan.

It is McMillin's duty to guard the best interests of the county's taxpayers and, whether the commissioners agree with specific views of the controller or not, they should defend his dedication to carrying out that task.

On the other hand, absent public allegations of criminal wrongdoing by McMillin against Zappala — there weren't any — or comments by the controller that could be construed as slanderous or defamatory — there were none — Zappala should have been content to simply provide full documentation to refute McMillin's concern about the costs associated with refinancing of a $6 million bond — and do so in a respectful manner.

The commissioners voted to approve the refinancing Wednesday.

Anyone who follows news emerging from the county Government Center is aware that McMillin has consistently been critical of the commissioners for bypassing competitive bidding on bond issues. McMillin believes that had the commissioners opted for competitive bidding, the county might have saved money — lots of money.

That, in fact, might have occurred.

In the past, McMillin has acknowledged that there was no guarantee regarding such a savings but, he said, at least the county could feel comfortable that the best financing deal available was being obtained, when using competitive bidding.

McMillin is correct that, without competitive bidding, there could not be such a conclusion on the county's part on any bond issue or refinancing.

Regardless, there never has been a public allegation by McMillin or anyone else in county government that Zappala has ignored the county's interests in presenting a reasonable financing or refinancing proposal.

But the legitimate questions remain: Were there better deals out there and why haven't the commissioners been determined to ensure beyond a reasonable doubt that there weren't?

Most people making a major purchase go to more than one financial institution to compare interest rates and financing terms. Why is such a basic procedure so foreign to the commissioners?

If McMillin didn't put forth his concerns on county financial matters, he wouldn't be doing his job. When the commissioners don't defend McMillin's right to do so, they are doing county taxpayers a disservice.

The commissioners did nothing illegal by opting against competitive bidding. There is no legal requirement that they do so.

But the commissioners should be able, ready and willing to lay out before the taxpayers facts to prove their opinion that they made the right choice. They should be prepared to do so now.

Bill O'Donnell, county chief clerk, said at Wednesday's meeting that he was satisifed with the service provided by Zappala and JPMorgan. Zappala has been the bond underwriter for the last seven financings or refinancings on which the county has embarked.

However, being satisfied and getting the best deal are two different issues. And taxpayers are most interested in county government getting the best deal. It's their money.

Bond underwriting is a complicated process that most people don't fully understand. The average taxpayer doesn't understand the fees and other considerations that are a part of such major transactions.

Instead of failing to defend McMillin or his right to question county financings, the commissioners should have expressed their intent to prove to county residents that the county did in fact get the best deal by way of Wednesday's refinancing. Zappala also should have made such a promise.

As a professional trying to sell his services to the county, Zappala should be prepared to make his case to taxpayers and let the process of consideration run its course — and let the facts speak for themselves. That's what happens in county government on other purchases of such a large scale.

The taxpayers should be bothered by Zappala's litigation threat. In the bigger picture, JP Morgan shouldn't condone such conduct either without solid evidence that the company is being maliciously wronged.