Tablack should make public his warnings about finances

Anyone who has followed Mahoning County Auditor George Tablack's political career knows that he is a stickler for detail, which is why we have no doubt that two years ago he sent memorandums to the county commissioners urging them to curb their spending ways because lean economic times were around the corner.
Why are we so certain that Tablack memorialized his opinion in writing? Because we can't imagine the county auditor being so distraught about the way the commissioners were managing the public's money and yet not keeping a record of his concerns. Indeed, we would be surprised if Tablack did not develop various strategies for dealing with the impending economic crisis that he subsequently submitted to commissioners Edward Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock and David Ludt.
If we're jumping to conclusions, it's only because Tablack says he foresaw Mahoning County's financial problems two years ago and told Reese, Sherlock and Ludt that they should reduce spending and prepare for lean times. In 2000, the county was in relatively good shape.
"To me, this situation was not only apparent, but avoidable," the auditor says, referring to the 2003 general fund budget adopted recently by the commissioners. It calls for $10 million less in spending than the 2002 outlay.
Differing versions
It should come as no surprise, however, that Reese, Sherlock and Ludt disagree with Tablack's version of what took place two years ago. His emphatic tone that came through in Thursday's front page Vindicator story was not evident when he talked to them, the commissioners contend.
Reese says the auditor has spoken to him only "in casual conversations" about the budget, while Ludt points out that he meets frequently with Tablack and that the auditor offered no specific recommendations for dealing with the county's financial crisis.
So, what form did Tablack's warnings take? Were they delivered in a formal setting so there is a record of the meetings? Did Tablack submit recommendations that, if adopted, would have saved the county from its current economic meltdown?
The auditor says the commissioners should have started cutting back in 2000 instead of dipping into a cash reserve for operating expenses. But Reese, Sherlock and Ludt and county Administrator Gary Kubic defend the spending decisions as being essential, especially in light of the ballooning cost of criminal justice and stagnant tax revenue.
Does the county auditor believe that repairs to buildings were an improper expenditure of money? Is he suggesting that investing in technology, which will help government run more efficiently and reduce operational costs, was irresponsible?
It is one thing for Tablack to say that he foresaw the county's problems and warned commissioners to cut back on spending. We have to wonder, where's the paper trail?