Some observers of Butler County government might detect an eerie sense of déjà vu lately. They’ll note how Monday’s page-one story, discussing the possibility of privatizing the county prison, resembles the first reports that surfaced a year ago about the potential sale of Sunnyview, the county’s nursing home.

There are a few noteworthy parallels. Republican majority commissioners Dale Pinkerton and Bill McCarrier, responding to questions about leaked or rumored information, confirm they’re looking — just looking — into all options that might reduce the county’s largest budget line-item; they’re still fact-gathering and they haven’t made a commitment yet to any action. Their only goal now is to seek information. Neighboring Mercer and Lawrence counties both are considering privatization, they say, and it could benefit Butler County to learn from their experience.

Democrat Jim Eckstein says he’s opposed — and he points out that negotiations will begin soon over an about-to-expire labor contract with prison employees.

In reality, there are wide differences between the privatization of a county nursing home and a county prison. It made sense a century ago to operate a “county home” when no such counterpart existed in the private sector, but nowadays nursing homes run efficiently and profitably in the private sector. The county was perfectly justified in selling Sunnyview to the most competent bidder.

By contrast, privatizing a prison is much harder to justify. Sheriff Mike Slupe, who voiced opposition Monday, said privatization would give up certain control of the prison staff and inmates. Simple matters such as scheduling, staffing, daily routine and even the inmates’ clothing could complicate the court system’s interface with prison operations. Such details might even compromise public safety.

Ultimately, the prison is a vital component of the county while a nursing home is not.

Consider the lesson learned in the mid-1980s, when a private company, Buckingham Security, took over management of the Butler County Prison. Dennis Rickard, who was sheriff at the time, said the change did not save money. He said privatization raised security issues, too. It wasn’t long before the prison reverted to full county control.

It’s telling that Eckstein mentioned labor talks. The existing four-year contract for corrections officers, represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers, ends in December. Negotiations with AFSCME are to begin this year. Eckstein’s comments reveal his understanding that the privatization talk is meant as a warning to the union.

“I want to come to an amicable agreement that’s good for the taxpayers and workers,” Eckstein said, referring to the contract talks that will being soon.

Eckstein’s assumptions can’t be dismissed.

In neighboring Lawrence County, commissioners recently sought proposals from prospective private operators. But they dropped the plan, according to Dan Vogler, board chairman, when Lawrence County reached an agreement with its corrections officers, resulting in a new three-year contract.

“We have concluded we will not be moving forward with privatization,” Vogler said.

To any official studying their options — and to any union negotiator, for that matter — the turn of events next door in Lawrence County could not have gone unnoticed.