Now that a visiting judge has ruled against Butler County Sheriff Dennis Rickard in a dispute over elimination of some deputy sheriff positions, the sheriff should work to ensure that his office operates with the utmost efficiency and effectiveness.

Although Rickard maintains the right to appeal the decision of visiting Senior Judge Eugene Fike of Somerset County, the sheriff should not contest the ruling but instead use his time, energy and management skills to make the most of his remaining manpower. With the new county prison in full operation, the sheriff and his staff have the advantage of having to make far fewer out-of-county trips for prisoners.

All of the prisoners that were being housed in other counties due to the overcrowding at the old prison have been brought to the new South Washington Street prison.

In handing down his ruling, Fike said Rickard failed to present enough evidence there would be harm caused by the reduction in the number of deputies. The county salary board voted in April to cut seven deputy positions, two on Wednesday and five on Aug. 31.

With the first cut in effect on Wednesday, Rickard's office was down to 21 full-time positions and seven part-time deputies.

Despite Fike's ruling, Rickard should feel a sense of satisfaction in the fact that the judge left a slight opening for future action by the sheriff besides his appeal prerogative. The judge dismissed Rickard's request for an injunction to halt the position cuts without prejudice, meaning Rickard can file a new petition if he feels he could better substantiate his arguments on behalf of an injunction.

However, there's also a window of opportunity for Rickard in his dealings with the salary board, of which he is a member when matters relating to his office are on the board's agenda. The county's three commissioners and the county controller also are board members.

That opportunity was voiced by Commissioner Dale Pinkerton, who said the sheriff, prior to Aug. 31, can present information to justify that the jobs in question are vital to the effective performance of the Sheriff's Department.

"We're still waiting for the sheriff to provide information," Pinkerton said. "We would certainly look at it."

Still, the biggest issue working against the sheriff now is the fact that there will be fewer out-of-county trips by deputies, now that all overflow prisoners from the old prison are housed in the new facility.

Although Rickard disagrees, Pinkerton, Commissioner James Kennedy and Controller Jack McMillin contend that seven new deputy positions authorized by the salary board in 2004 were added due to the many prisoner transports necessary due to overcrowding at the old prison. While the Sheriff's Department does have a challenging workload beyond prisoner transports to court hearings, hospital visits or for whatever other reason, the department's fewer out-of-country trips due to the opening of the new prison should free up considerable time for the remaining deputies to perform those functions.

If the sheriff can prove otherwise, he again can pursue a court injunction or ask for reconsideration by the salary board. Other board members are not unreasonable in terms of the county government's and court system's needs. And, indeed, the operation of the Sheriff's Department impacts the efficiency of the courts.

The elimination of the deputy positions that the salary board now considers excessive will have a positive impact on the county budget, which is being forced to cope with a $2 million expenditure caused by the hiring of additional corrections officers for the new, larger prison. The county expects to save $400,000 by way of the deputy job cuts.

If Rickard is to be faulted in the manpower dispute, it is for his unwillingness to see how the manpower change would work before going to court and causing additional legal expenses for the county. Rickard has criticized the salary board for not allowing the new prison to begin operations before judging his department's needs, and that argument is reasonable.

But his stated lack of confidence in the process of videoconferencing for certain hearings ignores the capabilities of current technologies. The sheriff should have reserved judgment on that hearing technique until after it began to be used, rather than publicly express doubts about its capabilities before it was given a chance to operate.

"The evidence is insufficient under existing appellate authority to show . . . an actual genuine threat to the operation of the sheriff's office," Fike wrote, in refusing to grant Rickard's injunction request.

At least for now, Rickard should accept that ruling without pursuing further court action.