If the man in charge of a department that shook down employees for campaign contributions ends up with probation, is the five-year investigation into the wrongdoing a blow against corruption or a waste of taxpayer's money?

On Nov. 21, former Allegheny County Sheriff Pete DeFazio pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of macing.

The U.S. attorney's office had accused him of forcing his employees to contribute to his election campaign. Those who did were rewarded with plum assignments and promotions. Those who did not were punished with unsavory jobs and a lack of opportunity within the office.

Two top commanders went to prison for felony convictions, and one other person in addition to the sheriff pleaded guilty to misdemeanors.

Mr. DeFazio retired in October, and because the misdemeanor is not one of the state charges that require an official to forfeit his county pension, he will keep his.

U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan says that the cases have rooted out long-standing corruption in the sheriff's department and allowed it to start with a clean slate. The investigation has renewed calls to make the office an appointed rather than an elected one.

Former U.S. Attorney Harry P. Litman called Mr. DeFazio's guilty plea a "commendable result from the standpoint of the public interest in good government."

"When you look at it, at all four of the prosecutions, the impressive result for public policy is that they've managed to uproot a culture of corruption and start a new day in the sheriff's office," Mr. Litman said. "From that vantage point, whether the sheriff pleads to a misdemeanor or a felony, or whether he keeps his pension, is secondary."

But another former Western District U.S. attorney, Frederick Thieman, said in a high-profile case, misdemeanor pleas often raise as many questions as they answer.

He declined to comment on the specifics of the sheriff's case, but talked about how rare misdemeanor pleas are in federal court.

"On one hand, some may see it as an anticlimactic conclusion to a lengthy investigation," he said. "Others may see it as an insignificant resolution if federal resources were truly warranted."

Ms. Buchanan said that her office had been attacking an environment that went on in the sheriff's office for decades -- long before Mr. DeFazio took over.

And it was one, she said, that had to end.

"Without securing a conviction of Pete DeFazio, this criminal conduct would not have come to an end because the public would have felt that the top officers are not held responsible for their actions," she said.

Mr. DeFazio, up until his court hearing, denied that he was involved in collecting donations from employees, or that he knew it was wrong.

"His plea last week ended that charade," Ms. Buchanan said.

She's also content that the crime is only a misdemeanor.

"We can only charge people with the crime we are able to prove," she said.

The plea also allows the sheriff's employees finally to move on and try to repair the stain on their office, she said.

University of Pittsburgh law professor John Burkoff said any plea is a good one.

"It's good anytime to get a guilty plea, simply in the sense that a wrongdoer has come to justice," Mr. Burkoff said. "Could they have gotten him for more? We simply don't know what cards they had."

Either way, he believes, the prosecution sent a message about public corruption.

"If you're a public official and engage in misconduct, you may well receive your comeuppance -- that's valuable in itself," Mr. Burkoff said.

As for the length of the investigation, five years is not at all unusual, said Alex Knott, with the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, D.C.

"Anytime you have a political person being investigated, it seems prosecutors are dragging their feet," Mr. Knott said. "But sometimes, they're just navigating the political minefields, and that's because it's very difficult for them to weigh in on something this politically charged without hurting their careers.

"There are huge implications behind almost every indictment. It creates a very hard situation for prosecutors."

Ms. Buchanan agreed that all public corruption cases are challenging. There is difficulty in getting witnesses to come forward, and to sort out the motives of those who do.

Additionally, going after public officials has tremendous implications because they are often well-known in the community.

"It is often difficult to weigh all factors and determine whether federal prosecution is the appropriate remedy to address the public officials' conduct," she said.

Elected versus Appointed

There are 3,087 sheriff's offices in the United States. Of those, less than 1 percent are appointed positions. The rest, according to the National Sheriffs' Association, are elected.

That, according to Ann Yom, director of government affairs for the association, follows a long line of American tradition. In recent years, she has not seen any kind of national trend moving toward appointed officials.

But last month, Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato asked County Council to include in next year's primary a referendum to eliminate the elected sheriff's post. He would like to merge that office with the county police.

A similar effort nearly two years ago resulted in six elected row offices being eliminated. The sheriff's office escaped that round, but Barbara McNees, the president of the Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce who headed the Committee for Row Office Reform in 2005, believes now's the time.

Creating an appointed position, she said, allows for better management and more control over the office.

"Regardless of what has happened, the behavior of people, what they've been accused of, it still goes back to more efficient, effective government," she said.

Just because the position becomes an appointed one, she added, does not mean that the process would not remain open and public.

But Mr. Knott, who is the political editor for the Center for Public Integrity, cautioned that appointed positions can be earned through nepotism and campaign contributions, as well as past or future relationships with the political person or body making the appointment.

Whether Mr. DeFazio knew his employees were using pressure to get the donations doesn't matter, Ms. Buchanan said. What does, she continued, is that the practice is over.

"We essentially eliminated every supervisor within the Allegheny County sheriff's office that was responsible for this illegal conduct," she said. "The sheriff's office has an opportunity to make a fresh start."