Dowling: Something is way out of kilter
I'm all for vigorous investigation and prosecution of wrongdoing by public officials. But the case of former Maricopa County School Superintendent Sandra Dowling seems way, way out of kilter.

In Novemeber 2006, Dowling was indicted on 25 felony charges, including bid rigging, misuse of public funds and the theft of $1.9 million in public money.

At the time, Sheriff Joseph Arpaio labelled her actions as "repulsive."

So, please tell me how we go from a repulsive public official stealing millions to one who is allowed to plead guilty to a wrist-slapping misdemeanor (giving her daughter a summer job) in full satisfaction of all the charges?

Something had to be woefully wrong somewhere along the way.

The Sheriff's Department spent 11 months investigating this case. Was the investigation badly flawed or, as Dowling charges in a lawsuit, were the two-dozen-plus charges an outrageous example of "malicious prosecution and abuse of process"?

And what about the prosecutor's role. Was County Attorney Andrew Thomas and his staff bamboozled by the charges. Couldn't they see an incredibly weak case, and shouldn't they have done some weeding in November 2006 rather than presenting the whole load -- garbage and legitimate questions about Dowling's conduct -- to a Grand Jury for indictments? Or was Thomas involved in a malicious prosecution conspiracy with Arpaio?

These questions need to be answered because they go to the heart of how justice is administered in Maricopa County. That's why I hope Dowling goes forward with her lawsuit. Unfortunately, I fear that we'll see a huge settlement, requiring county taxpayers to pay millions in exchange for no public disclosure of information.

That would be a miscarriage of justice. We need to know, one way or another, whether we can trust what goes on in the Sheriff's Department and the County Attorney's Office when it comes to investigating other public officials.

Are Arpaio and Thomas dedicated public servants going where evidence takes them or are they creeps using their elected offices to get back at political opponents -- possibly through illegal means? (I suppose there is a middle ground: They could be dedicated public servants who are just inept at building a case that could stand up at trial.)

Let's hope we find out soon.