[Nameplate] Overcast ~ 50°F  
High: 62°F ~ Low: 46°F
Monday, May 2, 2016

15-year councilman will not seek re-election

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

GREENCASTLE -- Tuesday night's Putnam County Council meeting began with a changing of the guard.

Mitch Proctor, who has been the council's president since he served at his first meeting in 1985, told his fellow council members that in addition to not wanting to be considered for the council presidency for 2010, he also would not seek re-election in November for his council seat.

"I've had a great time; it's been a good run," he said. "I've seen the good times and the bad times, and have had the privilege of serving with an august group that's always been good."

Proctor said he looks forward to "not sitting here running the meetings, but sitting out there watching them."

The council unanimously selected Darrel Thomas, last year's vice president, as their new president. Keith Berry, who was absent from the meeting, was chosen to take Thomas' spot as vice president.

"That's what happens when you miss a meeting," Proctor said with a chuckle.

After his appointment, Thomas presided over the rest of the council meeting.

Putnam County Treasurer Sharon Owens asked the council for approval to hire Barbara Wood as her first deputy, and to make the second deputy post in her office a part-time position. The cut in the second deputy position, coupled with the fact that neither Wood nor the new second deputy would be on the county's insurance, will translate into a savings of about $28,000 for the treasurer's office, Owens said.

Putnam County Auditor Stephanie Campbell asked the council to approve an additional claim for $18,940 to pay Owens' annual bond.

The county had budgeted $1,010 -- the amount that had been paid to bond the previous year's treasurer -- to bond Owens. In December, the county received a bill listing $19,950 as the amount needed to bond Owens.

"The money is there, we just didn't budget it," Campbell said. "It will be paid out of the county general fund. (The additional expense) will just take away from the operating budget."

Every county employee must be bonded, Campbell said. Bonds for employees vary based on how much access employees have to cash and on the employee's personal credit history.

The county's insurance carrier, Greencastle-based HBG, hires bond companies on behalf of the county, Campbell said.

"When we got the bill in December, that was the first time any of us were aware that the bill for (Owens') bond would be that high," Campbell said.

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on bannergraphic.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.


-- Posted by ProblemTransmission on Wed, Jan 20, 2010, at 5:44 AM

There is a lot of difference between $1010 and $19950! What's going on here? From the article, is Sharon Owens' credit history not good? This needs some explanation.

-- Posted by not gullible on Wed, Jan 20, 2010, at 9:07 AM

I would like to set the record straight on the Treasure's office.

The bond rules changed on June 1, 2009. The Treasurer now has to be bonded for $210,000 not $15,000 other offices are only $15,000.

The bond can run from 5% to 25% of the bond. Ms. Owens bond is for 9% of the bond. I do not think that this is showing that Ms. Owens is having financial problems.

This is getting out of hand and I think it needs to stop. What is personal needs to stay out of the Court House.

And the Banner needs to report on what goes on during the meeting not what is said after the meeting.

-- Posted by HumbleBug on Wed, Jan 20, 2010, at 10:38 AM

Sounds to me like this is a personal issue with the Auditor. Maybe the Auditor should look in their own closet. Why not tell the whole story?

-- Posted by countytaxpayer on Wed, Jan 20, 2010, at 10:46 AM


-- Posted by Mac on Wed, Jan 20, 2010, at 11:23 AM

Humblebug thank you for clearing that up I have been asking why the increase and no one would answer so again thanks. But when I person gets elected to an office there is a certain amount of personal information (true or not) that will be made public. People should learn to expect this when they run for office.

-- Posted by worrieddaddy on Wed, Jan 20, 2010, at 8:41 PM

Sorry for the typo should read "But when a" instead of "i"

-- Posted by worrieddaddy on Wed, Jan 20, 2010, at 8:42 PM

HumbleBug is the new Treasurer, by the way. And if the bond issues had changed that much I believe the County Auditor would state that. And for those of you who do not know why the past treasuer only showed up half the time is because she had been very sick the last couple of years and her priority was to survive life. She showed at work as often as she could and did her job. Her first deputy at the time was very capable of taking care of what needed to be done. What is in store for the office now is another question.....

-- Posted by cowgirlsrule on Thu, Jan 21, 2010, at 10:31 AM

Sorry cowgirlsrule but, I am not the Treasurer. I am merely a concerned voter that has checked the facts.

-- Posted by HumbleBug on Thu, Jan 21, 2010, at 1:59 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: