Now that the Pennsylvania Treasury Department has officially notified Butler County Sheriff Dennis Rickard about an upcoming unclaimed-property audit, the sheriff should remain committed to full cooperation regarding information the state will seek.

Indeed, the state should be unwavering in its determination to acquire all of the data necessary to perform a complete audit. Anything less would be a disservice to the commonwealth in general - because of the state's responsibilities in regard to unclaimed property - not just to the people whose unclaimed property is at issue.

Rickard told the Butler Eagle Tuesday that he welcomes the audit, and that is commendable. Hopefully, the sheriff will be as upbeat about any recommendations that the Treasury Department might eventually make regarding how he maintains his future unclaimed-property records.

Meanwhile, there's another issue to which Rickard should be according attention. That involves interest earnings from his department's bank deposits that apparently have remained with his office's other money.

According to an Oct. 12 letter to Rickard from Brian Munley, director of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Audits, the audit will concentrate on unclaimed property for the period Jan. 1, 1995, to Dec. 31, 1999, and for unclaimed wages for the period Jan. 1, 1995, to Dec. 31, 2002.

The Pennsylvania Disposition of Abandoned and Unclaimed Property Act provides for a five-year holding period for the majority of property types before that property is deemed abandoned or unclaimed. A major exception to the five-year rule is in the area of payroll; wages are deemed to be unclaimed after two years.

As part of the upcoming audit by the state, the sheriff has been asked to complete a pre-audit questionnaire by Oct. 26. Meanwhile, Munley's letter says the department will be arranging a pre-audit conference with the sheriff - presumably to try to get the audit off on the right foot.

"To accomplish the audit objectives, our staff will need access to all books, records and documents necessary in order to verify reported and reportable amounts of unclaimed property and to trace these amounts to the basic underlying source documents," Munley's letter says.

It is to be hoped that Rickard is able and willing to comply with that request, unlike what occurred when the Butler accounting firm of Maher Duessel sought to audit the sheriff's department books for the year 2004. The condition of the sheriff's books resulted in a Maher Duessel recommendation that the sheriff's bank accounts be frozen until the department's financial records are straightened out.

That freeze reportedly has not happened.

Two years ago, the county paid a Pittsburgh accounting firm $63,000 to reconstruct the sheriff's financial records for the years 1999 through 2002, but the county should be reluctant to repeat that exercise.

Rickard is in a position of public trust, which requires that he maintain organized financial record-keeping. If the county faces any costs stemming from the state audit or any other sheriff's department audit, those costs should come from the sheriff's budget, not from the county's general fund.

The county hasn't experienced audit problems with any other row office.

Earlier this month, Rickard told the Eagle that his office provided everything Maher Duessel asked for in regard to the 2004 audit, but Robert Lent, a Maher Duessel certified public accountant, told the Eagle on Oct. 7 that "what he (Rickard) gave us wasn't sufficient to complete the (sheriff's department) audit."

A similar scenario must not evolve when the Treasury Department's auditors come to town on the unclaimed-property issue.

Meanwhile, if county controller Jack McMillin and county treasurer Diane Marburger are correct, some further scrutiny of the sheriff's financial procedures - outside the parameters of unclaimed property - seems to be in order. That scrutiny should focus on the sheriff not turning over to the county's general fund, interest earned on his department's bank deposits.

Marburger said Tuesday that the county's general fund hasn't received any interest earnings from Rickard accounts since June 2001. Just in one month - December 2004 - the sheriff's department received interest in the amount of $1,324.58 on its deposited funds. Therefore, it would appear that, even if Rickard is able to fully satisfy the state's auditors, someone on the county level - presumably the county commissioners - should be publicly demanding that the sheriff turn over the money that the county treasury is due.

The money in question, regardless of the amount, should be helping to meet county government obligations, not be sitting idle.

County row offices are not permitted to accumulate a profit. Rickard's alleged failure to turn over the interest funds in question indicates that the sheriff, intentionally or unintentionally, has allowed a profit scenario to exist.

The sheriff isn't enhancing his image in county taxpayers' eyes by failing to address such a basic issue and responsibility.

The upcoming state audit should shed important light on the sheriff's financial record-keeping and either refute or confirm what his critics have been saying about that important topic for a number of years.

For the sheriff, the important thing to keep in mind is that the upcoming state audit will be one resource toward achieving better future financial bookkeeping. But whether he takes full advantage of that positive opportunity is a decision he alone will make.