Thursday's announcement by the Pennsylvania Treasurer's Office of its plans to conduct an unclaimed-property audit of Butler County sheriff Dennis Rickard's accounts hopefully will be an incentive for Rickard to finally get his financial record-keeping in order.

A 2004 audit of Butler County government has recommended that the sheriff's department's current bank accounts be frozen until his financial records are straightened out. The audit's finding regarding the sheriff's books is the latest chapter in a long-running saga stemming from alleged financial-record-keeping disarray in that county department.

In 2002, the county paid a Pittsburgh accounting firm about $60,000 to "reconstruct" the sheriff's financial records.

"No procedures were put into effect to carry this work forward, either internally or by an outside firm, in order to produce similar financial records for calendar years 2003 and 2004," states the latest audit, which was performed by the Butler accounting firm Maher Duessel.

The Maher Duessel audit in part raises questions about the sheriff's compliance with the commonwealth's unclaimed-property rules.

Any costs to the county that might stem from the state's upcoming involvement, or any other costs tied to the sheriff's financial bookkeeping, should be deducted from the sheriff's department budget, not taken from general county revenues - regardless of what challenges to the department that might pose.

Outside the inconvenience for Rickard that the audit could involve, both he and the county commissioners should regard the state involvement as an opportunity to move forward on a positive note. Problems with the sheriff's books cannot continue to exist indefinitely, and, indeed, the commissioners can be faulted for not publicly making more of an issue of the sheriff's financial record-keeping, even though the sheriff's office is independent of the commissioners office.

The proverbial buck stops with the commissioners, as evidenced by their action in 2002 paving the way for the $60,000 to be spent. The commissioners reportedly were privy to the latest sheriff's office audit problems for at least a month prior to a story about the audit in Wednesday's Butler Eagle but, for whatever reason, chose to keep the problem under wraps.

It's puzzling - if the commissioners did in fact have knowledge about what Maher Duessel had to say about the sheriff's records - why commissioners chairman Scott Lowe declined to comment about the audit when asked about it prior to Wednesday's story.

Contending that the audit's finding had not been presented to the commissioners, Lowe said, "We're going to have to look into it."

The commissioners should not only do that, but pay attention to what's going on when the state Treasurer's Office personnel come to town.

Despite all of the negative comments about the sheriff's financial record-keeping over the past five or so years - Rickard has been sheriff for 24 years - the sheriff has remained steadfast in his position that his office has all of the necessary financial documentation needed and that there are no big problems with his books.

Indeed, no criminal wrongdoing is being alleged - nor should there be suspicion of any - in response to the news about the upcoming audit. Karen Walsh, communications director for state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., said a state audit is not an indication of any criminal wrongdoing, just a review of procedure and records. In this case, the audit will ascertain whether Rickard's office failed to remit unclaimed-property funds to the state treasury and, if so, how much.

"It's blown out of proportion," Rickard told the Butler Eagle Thursday, referring to the audit finding. "You only have half the information."

The sheriff placed part of the blame for the questions about his books on county Controller Jack McMillin.

"He (McMillin) never showed us what he wants," Rickard said.

"Yes, they (records) are auditable," the sheriff said emphatically. "We're not trying to be difficult."

He also said, after noting his 24 years of service, that "it's amazing that these things came up just over the past couple of years. Before that, everything was taken care of."

McMillin said Friday afternoon that on a number of occasions - not just for the latest completed audit, but also in previous years - he had reminded Rickard, the county commissioners and Maher Duessel about the need for the sheriff's unclaimed-property rules compliance.

As of Friday, the Eagle had not received a return call from the sheriff in response to a request for information about when he last provided an unclaimed-property report to the state and the amount of the last payment.

The Eagle received no return call from Lynn Beck, a Maher Duessel certified public accountant who was involved with the sheriff's department audit, in response to two messages left on her office telephone - one on Thursday and the other, Friday.

Rickard said his office had provided to Beck all of the information she requested.

Meanwhile, McMillin has remained firm in his view that Rickard has failed miserably in his responsibility to keep accurate financial records. Regarding the unclaimed-property issue, McMillin provided to the Eagle copies of letters he said he submitted to the sheriff regarding the obligation to comply with the state's unclaimed-property rules.

McMillin said he never received responses to those communications.

He also provided to the Eagle a 1½-page list of memoranda and correspondences submitted to the sheriff's office between Sept. 8, 1997, and Dec. 5, 2003, on matters such as the controller's internal audits and independent auditor management letters - memoranda and correspondences that never were answered. The controller indicated that list would be updated to reflect similar unanswered correspondences since December 2003.

The audit of Rickard's office, which will be overseen by Peter J. Smith, deputy state treasurer for audits and investigations, will be the fourth one of local governments initiated by Casey's office and the fifth one overall. The aim of the audit, if it finds noncompliance, isn't to exact financial penalties from the county; the aim is just to obtain any money owed to the state.

In Rickard's case, the audit also should serve as an incentive to keep up with unclaimed-property reports in the future - and strive to have all of his other financial records in a better state of organization as well.

It is important again to acknowledge the opportunity for Rickard to move forward on a positive note, once the state's audit is concluded and its findings are revealed. The question now is whether Rickard will make the most of that opportunity.