An unhappy reader

We’ve heard from a dozen readers who offered praise — and from one county employee who most certainly did not — about recent editorials questioning what county commissioners are doing.

A county secretary who moonlights as manager of a small business dropped by our office around 4 p.m. Friday to say her business would never again advertise in our papers because of what we have been writing about commissioners.

That’s her right, of course — provided she came on her own time, not while she was supposed to be at work , and hasn’t let her feelings interfere with her job, which includes providing timely information to the press.

A report we normally get from her was unusually small this week. Typically, it contains copies of a large number of officially public reports. This week it contained only two — one from almost 4 weeks ago and another from 9½ weeks ago. Coincidence? We sincerely hope so.

Still, if we were county employees, we might join her in boycotting us for trying to point out irrational county spending — things like the $46.85 bill for drinking water that commissioners approved Monday for an office that hasn’t been occupied in three months.

Only two people worked in the entire building where the vacant office was located, and their office also had a $46.85 bill for drinking water. Together, that’s 60 gallons for 2 people in 20 workdays — 11/2 gallons per person per day. There must be some pretty thirsty people working there.

Commissioners did call one employee on the carpet Monday for putting a seat upgrade, which he said he hadn’t realized he had ordered, onto a county credit card.

But the rest of the questions we’ve been raising — like why the county’s surprising leader in mileage claims needed $355.24 in reimbursement again last month despite her small office having two almost-always- parked county vehicles at its disposal — seem to have gone the same place as the 60 gallons of water.

Ah, county spending. Drink it in!

— ERIC MEYER