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.

America's Worst Sheriff
See what the New York Times Editorial Board has to say about Maricopa's burden. Also, read the Times feature, published Sunday, on Arpaio's new television show here.

How much does Fox pay Arpaio for this show? Does it go into the county treasury? Shouldn't it?

Ongoing shame of the Maricopa Supervisors
The East Valley Tribune has done an overview of the ongoing dispute between America's worst sheriff and the activist group called Maricopa Citizens for Safety Accountability (MCSA).

Even though many will find MCSA a little too aggressive for their tastes, what should be of concern to every democracy-loving citizen is the ongoing efforts of Maricopa County leaders to deny the group reasonable ways of making their case. It amounts to surpression of public debate.

MCSA leaders have repeated requested an opportunity to be on the county Board of Supervisors' agenda so they can present issues they have involving Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The board's four Republican supervisors repeatedly have blocked this basic right of access. Shame on them.

Meanwhile, Arpaio continues bathering about this as yet another conspiracy against him.

Now that the election is over, and Arpaio has another four years to hoodwink the public, the supervisors have no excuse -- not even a political one -- not to hear what these citizens have to say.

Put them on the agenda!

More on the mess Arpaio has made
The Goldwater Institute's Clint Bolick followed up the Institute's damning report on Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department's "misguided mission," with an excellent column in Sunday's East Valley Tribune. Read it here.

He makes an important point about Arpaio's sweeps:

Public reaction to the report seems divided between people who think the immigration sweeps are a good idea and those who don't. The question is not whether to enforce immigration laws, but how to most effectively do so. The sweeps are extremely costly in terms of manpower, yet yield few arrests of illegal immigrants and do not reduce crime in the areas in which they are conducted. Other police departments focus primarily on policing violent crimes and determine illegal status during booking. So far, the sweeps have led to only about 200 arrests of illegal immigrants, compared to 16,000 through the booking process.