Brickbats

Brickbat: Penny Wise

|

Pants
Creative Commons

Last year, a Lycoming County, Pennsylvania probation officer tore a pair of pants chasing a probationer who had failed to report. He filed to be reimbursed for the cost of the pants. County Controller Krista Rogers rejected that claim. He took that matter to court, and a judge ordered Rogers to pay him $60 for the pants. Rogers has so far spent $4,285 in legal fees fighting that order.

Advertisement

NEXT: When Ben Dreyfuss Discovered He Was Too Old to Seduce Kevin Spacey

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. My guess is she’s splitting that money with her solicitor.

  2. Krista is County Controller. She is one more example of why the unstable gender should not be in management.

    1. I am impressed by your technique to sabotage Reason’s fundraising efforts.

      1. I’m betting “ALWAYS RIGHT” is one of those Democrats who shows up at conservative rallies with a misspelled sign just to make Republicans look bad. Now he shows up at a libertarian site and acts like a misogynist to make libertarians look bad.

        1. Pretty sure it’s AmSoc/PB. Maybe he’s burned off on PB handle for a bit.

          1. Well Michael Hihn seems back based on this weekend’s comments.

            So there’s that.

        2. Don’t blame me if you are equal to the unstable gender. Let us hear about the examples of their dependable decision making.

    2. Heh. This reminds me of a parody-article I read recently that talked about how America’s experiment with allowing men in the workplace is an abject failure, as men repeatedly have shown that (as a group) we’re incapable of behaving professionally.

  3. “Rogers has so far spent $4,285 in legal fees fighting that order.”

    Rogers has so far spent $0. The Lycoming County taxpayers however….

    1. This, so much this. I’m gonna guess that the judge didn’t order Rogers to pay the 60 bucks out of her own pocket either, but you’d never know that from how it’s been written up here.

  4. Rogers is appealing the order of Judge Nancy L. Butts directing her to pay the $60 from the offender supervision fund. Rogers’ latest filing was Nov. 13.

    Rogers contends use of money in that fund is limited to salaries and benefits of employees and operational expenses of the office.

    It cannot be used to reimburse Ellison because the county does not provide work pants for probation officers, she claims.

    It’s the principle of the thing, like Walmart spending thousands defending against 500 dollar slip-and-fall suits. If it’s “just $60”, why don’t *you* pay for the pants? You pay a guy for tearing his pants and now every guy that wants a new pair of pants is going to be chasing probationers. If the county’s supposed to be providing the pants, investigate the probation officer for destruction of county property.

    1. Bullshit.. “OPERATIONAL EXPENSES”. It’s right there in the fund description. Either the officer did what he said he did in the line of duty, or he didn’t. If he did, pay him. if he didn’t, don’t pay him, and use that as your justification. If you get a bunch of officers making claims for destroyed trousers due to probationer chasing you can deal with that problem when it happens. I bet it doesn’t happen. In the meantime, Rogers is burning through taxpayer money for no good reason.

      1. Does operational expenses include the probation officer’s lunches and laundry expenses and Q-tips for cleaning his ears? If you tear your pants at work, does your company buy you new pants? If the county doesn’t provide work pants for probation officers, it ain’t an operational expense.

        1. Look at it this way, if they had just gone ahead and bought the guy a new pair of pants wouldn’t we have grounds for a Brickbat here over a county official buying pants for employees out of taxpayer funds when there’s no provision in the law to do so?

        2. I dunno. My company doesn’t normally pay for dry cleaning while traveling but if I spill something on my pants at a client dinner and need to get them cleaned at the hotel, my boss will approve it.

          So long as I don’t make a habit of it.

  5. The best part of this fluff is the Judge’s name.

  6. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the probation officer is almost certainly a public sector union member. If this trial balloon works out for him, it will become the standard for all union members going forward.

    1. Clearly in the next contract negotiation, this incident will be used to include a provision to have clothes provided for work, including all necessary cleaning, prelacement and repair.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.