Kootenai County Prosecutor Bill Douglas should fire his chief deputy over the e-mail-abuse scandal that has engulfed the office. Next, Douglas himself should resign.

Douglas has been coping with his own e-mail controversy for almost two years. Now we learn that Chief Deputy Rick Baughman, former victims advocate Laura Bonneville and Kootenai County Sheriff’s Department employees used their county computers to swap tasteless material, including bestiality, videos and at least one picture of a toddler with his genitalia exposed.

This stuff was being swapped around by people the taxpayers expect to protect them from child molestation, sexual harassment and rape. Douglas’ judgment in promoting Baughman has been brought into question by the illicit exchanges and recent claims of sexual harassment leveled against the chief deputy prosecutor by Bonneville and another former female employee.

The e-mails suggest a subculture among Kootenai County law enforcement that holds women, children, crime victims and the general public in contempt. At the least, they unveil an appalling unwillingness by county leaders to set and enforce appropriate standards of professional conduct. And that, in turn, could yet expose the county treasury to substantial liability.

For all that, Douglas has to share responsibility.

Consider: The prosecutor set a bad example for inappropriate county e-mails and worse by his online chatter with subordinate Marina Kalani, the former program director of the now-defunct juvenile drug court program. The two exchanged 1,066 e-mails; heavily redacted ones that were made public hinted at a romantic entanglement.

For a time, Douglas joined Kalani in fighting legal efforts to release hundreds of remaining e-mails. Douglas has dropped his appeal from lower-court rulings that the material is not protected by privacy laws, but Kalani has continued the fight. The Idaho Supreme Court is expected to rule next spring.

Consider: Sheriff Rocky Watson immediately cracked down on Sheriff’s Department computer use when he learned that some of his employees were involved in sending and/or receiving illicit e-mails to the prosecutor’s office, to one another, and to other offices. Watson has ordered his 200 employees to go through training on proper computer use, and he promises to discipline anyone who violated county policy by sending raunchy e-mails.

By contrast, Douglas dismissed the latest e-mail controversy as a “distraction” and insisted the “climate is fine” in his office.

Oh? It’s hard to imagine that the director of a small office, like the Kootenai County prosecutor’s, could be so oblivious to a work culture in which sexual harassment is alleged and lewd material routinely traded. Douglas has suspended Baughman pending an independent investigation of related charges involving sexual activity. But his reluctance to deal firmly with the e-mail firestorm raises speculation that he doesn’t understand its significance – that an office responsible for protecting the public morals is circulating lewd material.

Also consider the possible legal and personal problems the e-mail revelations would have caused if they’d come to light in the middle of a trial for Joseph Duncan, the convicted child molester/family murderer who reached a plea bargain with Douglas and Baughman.

It’s time to clean house at the Kootenai County prosecutor’s office.