At least, not right away.

No, if District Attorney David Yocom were really acting solely out of election year partisanship, as Mayor Nancy Workman predictably claims, he'd let the issue fester for a while.

He'd wait until the media and Workman's rival candidates milked Wednesday's damning report for all it was worth. Then, after that vein had petered out and Election Day was nigh, a nakedly partisan Yocom would push the allegations back into the center ring by only then filing formal charges.

This matter must be pursued in a way that is as nonpartisan as humanly possible. That's why Yocom properly outsourced the initial review of the facts to four professional prosecutors from surrounding county attorney offices - two headed by Democrats and two by Republicans. And that's why the district attorney would be correct to move on the panel's recommendation with all deliberate speed.

Yocom could further depoliticize matters by tapping an outside special prosecutor. But handling the case himself would be fully in keeping with Yocom's sworn duty to uphold the law.

The allegation that the prosecutors panel found credible is that Workman illegally diverted some $17,000 in county money to the nonprofit South Valley Boys and Girls Club, where her daughter works, to finance an accounting position that did no work for the county.

The first of two people to hold that job was reportedly represented to the county's administrative staff as a health-outreach liaison and paid from county Health Department funds. The Health Department director complained that her department's already tight funds were being drained for work that had nothing to do with its mission.

The prosecutors panel determined that the evidence is strong enough to justify moving forward with a criminal prosecution. It is in such a crucible that we might get the answers to some remaining questions, such as what, if anything, Workman and her daughter might have really gained from this fishy arrangement.

Neither woman appears to have directly lined her own pockets. But the possibility that the taxpayers were paying to make Workman's daughter look good to her employers is real enough that it cannot be dismissed with Workman's ad nauseam mantra that it was all done for the kids.

The question of whether Workman and her handsomely paid inner circle have treated the public coffers as their own personal piggy bank while hiding behind the slogan no new taxes is a political one. It remains on track to be answered by the voters in November.

The question of whether that arrogance crossed the line into criminal behavior is one for the courts. And soon.