Other articles by Jim Kiser:

A deadly fight our desert cannot afford to loseGuest Opinion: Legislature must stop predatory payday lendersMy opinion Jim Kiser : I'm leaving, but not for retirement My opinion Jim Kiser: Before I go: Four reforms to enact, one to rejectMy opinion Jim Kiser: Report on Rainbow Bridge raises several concernsMy opinion Jim Kiser : Fund BLM to preserve our history My opinion Jim Kiser: Transportation OK signals new era of cooperationMy opinion Jim Kiser: Legislative leaders' budget would cause discord, harmMy opinion Jim Kiser : Cutting taxes is cynical move that ultimately costs us more My opinion Jim Kiser: Committee's inquisition a lesson in reckless civics

Driver/Transportation
DRIVERS Health Care
ADMINISTRATOR General
Wasatch Property Management
Maintenance Tech General
Independent Fire & Safety
Fire Suppression Systems inspector General
Dismas Charities
Security Monitor Trades/Construction
Osmose Utilites
Foremen Sales and Marketing
Electric Supply, Inc
Outside Sales

Three follow-ups: ● It is unusual for an important government body to admit an error, but the Arizona Supreme Court recently did just that — formally and unanimously.

The admission involved a case that I wrote about last July. At that time, I criticized the mild discipline being given a prosecutor and a judge who had an affair — even as the prosecutor continued to appear officially 485 times in the judge's Apache County court. Both lied to investigators, but eventually they admitted to the affair.

Consequently, Superior Court Judge Michael C. Nelson resigned his judgeship and paid $2,967 in investigative costs. Afterward, he was allowed to return to practicing law.

The prosecutor, Nancy Elizabeth Dean, was ordered suspended from practicing law for one year. She challenged the suspension and appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.

On March 16, the court partially sided with Dean and reduced her suspension to six months.

The court explained it didn't take Dean's offense lightly. Indeed, it noted that the presumptive punishment for her offense of "misrepresentation," or lying to the State Bar, is disbarment.

But the court admitted it had fumbled the handling of Nelson's case and inadvertently made it impossible for the bar to discipline him any further.

Given the disparity in the severity of punishments, the court concluded, it was only fair to reduce Dean's punishment. "This case requires this Court to confront the consequences of our fallibility," the opinion said.

I remain disappointed in the mild punishment — it doesn't send the right signal either to other members of the legal profession or the public.

But the court's admission of culpability is disarming. Wouldn't it be nice to believe this is the start of a trend of governmental officials admitting their errors?

● In that same column, I criticized the State Bar for not providing any information on its Web site about the ethical cloud enveloping Nelson and Dean — or any other disciplined lawyer. In response, bar officials told me that they were working on adding disciplinary information to their Web site.

Now, I'm pleased to report the bar has made that improvement. Log onto www.azbar.org, choose the link to "Find a lawyer," enter a lawyer's name, and the bar will tell you whether the attorney has been disciplined and will even provide a summary of the case.

Enter Dean's name, for instance, and the Web site will tell you she is suspended from practice. It also gives an accurate 290-word summary of her offenses.

Ironically, though, the disparity in punishment between Nelson and Dean continues. The description of Dean's offenses on the bar Web site refers several times to the "Superior Court judge" with whom Dean had an affair, but it never gives Nelson's name. Moreover, Nelson's entry says nothing to indicate he was disciplined for his ethical lapse.

However, even with these shortcomings, the bar's addition of disciplinary actions to its Web site is an important step toward improving the public's perception of the legal profession's professionalism.

● Speaking of professionalism, it is only appropriate to acknowledge that Reid Park Zoo administrator Susan Basford and her staff decided last month not to breed the 26-year-old African elephant Shaba.

Basford said the decision was based on research showing older first-time elephant mothers have a lower success rate and a greater rate of complications. Plus, none of the staff members had any experience with an elephant pregnancy.

That still leaves open the question of whether the city should keep Shaba and Connie, the zoo's second elephant, or send them to a sanctuary. The City Council is scheduled to consider that decision Tuesday, when members decide whether to continue with plans for an $8.5 million expansion to the zoo.

A front-page news story Thursday reported most Council members favor keeping the elephants, with some wanting to add even a third adult elephant. Officials are discussing a variety of funding mechanisms, including raising admission fees and issuing bonds.

However, if the Council is committed to keeping the elephants, then officials need to raise their sights considerably. The evidence is strong that a few-acre addition to the elephants' habitat is terribly inadequate, especially if the zoo is to add a third elephant.

Officials should be speaking in terms of dozens — more likely, hundreds — of additional acres, with costs several times higher than $8.5 million.

If that is the Council's priority for Tucson, so be it. But it certainly is not my priority.

My opinion