Now that a Pittsburgh accounting firm has reorganized the financial records of the Butler County Sheriff's Office and the county controller's office has begun an audit of that office covering the years 1999 through 2002, it is important that Sheriff Dennis Rickard answer questions stemming from the audit so the controller's office can complete its work as efficiently and expeditiously as possible.

The sheriff maintained, even prior to the Pittsburgh accounting firm's work, that his books were in a condition capable of being audited. Rickard has long alleged that the reason county Controller John R. "Jack" McMillin had previously refused to audit his books was because Rickard refuses to answer a 70-question document to which Rickard objects.

Other county row offices routinely fill out that questionnaire.

Similar questionnaires are common in audits involving businesses and industries, but Rickard has contended that the questionnaire infringes on the sheriff's job duties.

A court case is pending between the sheriff and controller over the questionnaire issue. The case is to be heard by a non-Butler County judge in Butler County Court next month.

Even with the sheriff's full cooperation in answering questions stemming from the controller's office's work, McMillin estimates that it will take about 100 hours of work for each of the four years that the audit will cover. McMillin said such audits of county row offices whose books are in good order usually involve 50 hours to 75 hours of work.

McMillin says his office already has noted a number of issues about which it will need answers in order to complete its work. McMillin said he has asked the sheriff in writing to provide answers to those questions.

Rickard should not balk at doing that.

McMillin says one of the values of the questionnaire Rickard refuses to answer is that it helps auditors focus on areas of potential weakness in financial bookkeeping; identifying those problems helps resolve them for future years. The controller said that, by refusing to answer the questionnaire, the sheriff has created the necessity of a more intense audit of the full scope of the sheriff's office's financial matters - an examination that McMillin likened to a "forensic audit."

The upcoming court case presumably will decide the questionnaire issue on the county level, but even if Rickard wins, he still could be confronted with a similar questionnaire if federal auditors choose to audit the spending of federal money that the sheriff's office receives. Even now Rickard should be pondering how he would deal with that scenario, if it arises.

Failure to cooperate with federal auditors could result in a loss of funds.

Loss of federal or state money isn't an issue in the Rickard-McMillin questionnaire tiff.

What's important now from county taxpayers' perspective is that the controller's audit of the sheriff's books for the four years in question proceed as smoothly as possible. For that to happen, the sheriff must answer the controller's office's auditing queries about specific issues relating to the examination of the books.

For now, the questionnaire's fate can remain undecided without inhibiting progress on the audit.

The county spent $62,000 for the Pittsburgh accounting firm to reorganize the sheriff's books - an expenditure that was not found to be necessary in any of the other county row offices. Any additional time the controller's office would be forced to devote to the sheriff's office audit because of delays or unwillingness on the sheriff's part to cooperate would be troubling from the taxpayers' standpoint. Taxpayers expect a cooperative attitude from those whom they elect.

Now that McMillin has begun the long-sought audit, the sheriff should do his part to help bring it to completion as quickly as possible.

- J.R.K.