Butler County Sheriff Dennis Rickard believes that the county salary board's decision to eliminate seven full-time deputy sheriff positions — two on July 1 and another five on Aug. 31 — would create public safety concerns. He's entitled to that belief and has the right to try to change the minds of those who voted to approve the cuts.

But he is wrong in the way he is presenting his arguments.

So far he's been unsuccessful, and also has been denied a preliminary injunction after two days of testimony before a visiting judge from Somerset County.

A trial aimed at resolving the issue is scheduled to begin May 28.

While many county taxpayers might watch the dispute — some siding with the sheriff, some with the salary board and some with no strong feeling either way — what they might forget is the cost they will shoulder as a result of the disagreement.

Rickard says he is paying out of his own pocket for lawyer Tom May in his fight against the salary board. But the fact that he has chosen to go to court to win back the deputy positions, rather than merely prove his case on paper to the salary board, has required legal representation for the county that will be paid by the taxpayers.

Doug Linn, the lawyer for the county, reportedly is billing $135 an hour. That means that, although Rickard is paying for his side of the court battle, he will be costing the taxpayers perhaps thousands of dollars in legal fees that most taxpayers would prefer not to have to pay.

Again, Rickard has an option for easing the burden on the taxpayers: provide well-documented, verifiable data to justify the need for all of the existing deputy positions.

The position of the salary board — that the Sheriff's Department will not need as many deputies once the new county prison is in operation — is shared by many county taxpayers, and is a reasonable view. Many taxpayers believe that with all Butler County prisoners incarcerated in this county, rather than a significant number in other county prisons due to overcrowding at the current local jail, prisoner transports will drop significantly and a smaller staff of deputies should be able to handle the workload.

Rickard contends all of the current deputy positions will continue to be needed, even if some deputies aren't routinely away on trips to the other counties. But some people have observed that even with the current rate of out-of-county transports, the current staff of deputies is not overburdened. Those observations are based on what they see deputies doing — or not doing — in and around the Government Center and courthouse.

It's worth noting that Rickard has been given the opportunity to defuse the dispute without going to trial. County Controller Jack McMillin, a member of the salary board who voted in favor of reducing the sheriff's deputy staff, said he would be willing to reconsider his vote if Rickard supplied data justifying his stance.

And Commissioner Dale Pinkerton has said he would be willing to hire a private security firm to oversee the Government Center lobby to free up deputies, now stationed there, for other duties.

It's also reasonable to believe that if a smaller deputy staff proved unworkable once it is fully implemented, the salary board would reconsider the April 8 action authorizing the deputy cuts.

County leaders aren't unreasonable people who expect the impossible from the Sheriff's Department.

Neither should Rickard be unreasonable in his stance tied to the transition to the new prison. He should commit himself to working on behalf of the taxpayers' best interests, as well as his department's, and he would go a long way simply by providing verifiable documentation regarding the needs that will remain, even with the new prison open.

For comparison, the information should include detailed data dealing with the number of prisoner transports that took place during a specified period of time, such as a year; the time involved; and the number of deputies used in those transports.

Rickard has been unwilling, or unable, to comply with requests for that information. Whether he has kept a detailed, ongoing record of the activities of his deputy staff then beomes a legitimate question.

Rickard should consider this:

When the Sheriff's Office's financial records were in disarray about seven years ago, county taxpayers footed the bill — to the tune of $60,000 — when the county hired a Pittsburgh accounting firm to reconstruct the office's financial records.

In 2004, an audit of the county government recommended that the Sheriff's Department's bank accounts at that time be frozen until his financial records were straightened out.

"No procedures were put into effect to carry this (2002) work forward, either internally or by an outside firm, to produce similar financial records for calendar years 2003 and 2004," stated the 2004 report, which was performed by Maher Duessel, a Butler accounting firm.

Now the sheriff, who has the opportunity, by way of providing information, to spare the taxpayers more legal costs, chooses instead to opt for a stubborn stance and impose another unnecessary burden on taxpayers' wallets and pocketbooks.

Rickard should defuse the dispute and avoid court. He should provide an organized package of data to support his position rather than continue to pursue an unnecessary, expensive, time-consuming battle that never should have started.