End the tendency to shoot from hip

‘Bullet’ points

• Do the commissioners or the acting sheriff have authorization to sell property in the sheriff’s custody to the public?

• Should these items be put out for bid? If so, why weren’t they? And who made that call?

• How were the prices for the firearms set?

• What is necessary to establish standard operating procedures for the future sale of county property?

• Since three men have run the sheriff’s department over the span of 25 months and the county commissioners’ majority has changed three times in that same period, wouldn’t it be prudent to take inventory of other personal property now in the custody of the sheriff’s department?

• Lastly, is it wise for a county agency with some law-enforcement powers to be selling guns while state-funded programs are trying to reduce the number of privately owned firearms?

THE DISPUTE between Luzerne County administrators and the acting sheriff over the sale of firearms has again illustrated a scattershot approach to property guardianship.

The issue is whether the sheriff’s department had the authority to sell a 1920s-era Tommy gun and 23 other firearms without public advertising or the commissioners’ approval. Legitimate questions about the acting sheriff’s decision to use $18,200 to buy Taser guns also remain unanswered.

But the political skirmish unfolding also illustrates a recurring problem under the courthouse dome: a disregard for standard operating procedures based on state regulations spelled out in the County Code.

Questionable debit card use, lack of accountability over county-owned vehicles, and dubious procurement of prison supplies and services in recent years illustrate a lack of practical controls.

In the latest shootout, commissioners Chairwoman Maryanne Petrilla and Controller Walter Griffith, with the aid of Solicitor Vito DeLuca, have set their sights on acting Sheriff Charles Guarnieri.

For his part, Guarnieri, a former Duryea police officer, maintains the county administration should have known his department was selling guns because a line item was set up to credit the Tommy gun sale in an office account.

Before this turf battle escalates, it might be wise for the county to ask the state to take over the probe being spearheaded by Griffith and DeLuca. State law governs the matters being disputed, and the parties involved still have to work together afterward to actually do the job for which they were elected: run the county efficiently.

For the good of the county, an outside agency devoid of partisan or personal politics must resolve this clash before it escalates into a costly political battle.

Clear 26°

Opinion

‘Bullet’ points

Place Quick Ads