Carroll County Council President Rob Baker announced at Tuesday morning’s meeting that, according to county attorney Barry Emerson, the council can decide to assume the responsibility of providing jail meals to county detainees and remove that responsibility from sheriff Dennis Randle. They can do that if they increase his pay to 66 percent of what a full-time prosecutor is paid for a county the size of Carroll County.

“Our big question last month was, can we do it?” said Baker. “And now we found out we can do it.”

“I’m not going to vote for doing it until we look at all the options,” councilman Steve Ashby commented.

Baker reported receiving a letter from Midland Meals, a vendor interested in providing the meal service. Neda Kay Duff of Delphi spoke on behalf of approximately seven audience members and urged the council to step in to remove the meals from the sheriff.

“We are here because the right thing needs to be done,” Duff said. She cited several concerns including that detainees go weeks without a milk product.

“Something has to be done. We pay taxes to feed the detainees,” she said. “And then we pay commissary to supplement their meals.” Randle asked for rebuttal time and directed his remark to the council, “I don’t think you can force me into that contract.”

He added, “I’ve contacted my attorney.”

“Communication here is going to be the key to solve this problem,” councilman Carl Abbott said. “I’m in favor of taking the meals away from the sheriff and giving him the 66 percent of the prosecutor’s salary.”

Council members voted unanimously to

proceed in finding another vendor to offer the jail meals service.

students Animal Control

Council members failed to approve the proposed amended animal control ordinance. Progress was halted when the discussion turned on a disagreement with the wording of the ordinance about how cats will be handled in the county.

“I can’t vote for the ordinance because of the cat issue,” council member John Blackburn said. “I can’t see we are legally bound to handle cats.”

According to the proposed ordinance “the term ‘public nuisance’ shall mean and include, but is not limited to, any dog or cat that damages, soils, defiles or defecates on private property other than the owners’ or on public walks or recreation areas, unless such waste is immediately removed and properly disposed of by the owner; causes unsanitary, dangerous or offensive conditions; causes a disturbance by excessive barking or other noise making; or chases vehicles or molests or attacks or interferes with persons or domestic animals on property other than that belonging to the owner.”

After reviewing the public nuisance definition Baker said, “I can see where John is coming from. That public nuisance statement is pretty broad.” “I agree. I won’t vote for this today,” stated Abbott.

The council tabled the matter and scheduled a special meeting for Dec. 30 at 8 a.m. to address the issue.

“I would like to pass the ordinance this year,” said Ashby.

Ashby, Abbott and Baker expressed gratitude to Dr. Lawrence Stauffer who provides shelter services to the county.

The proposed contract for Stauffer’s services was not approved due to his request for retroactive payment for 2005 services and lack of funds in the animal control account. The matter was also tabled until the special year-end meeting.

According to county auditor Beth Myers, after the current claim is paid there will be $35 remaining in the account.

The next meeting, after the Dec. 30 special meeting, will be Jan. 23 at 8 a.m.