X-ray vision might spot transparent district attorney selection

For more than an hour, seven county commissioners blathered before choosing Las Vegas City Councilman Steve Wolfson as the new district attorney.

Yet, except for one sentence from Mary Beth Scow, their reasons why were missing.

All seven babbled about what great candidates all three men were. They praised Las Vegas attorney John Hunt for his passion and big heart. They praised Office of County Counsel Drew Christensen for his range of experience and understanding of the system. They praised Wolfson as an articulate and experienced attorney and able councilman.

But when it was time to explain why commissioners voted the way they did, Mary Beth Scow said in her best Marilyn Monroe voice she would like to put a motion on the floor.

"I felt that looking at experience and potential conflicts, that led me to one candidate, so I move to appoint Steve Wolfson."

That was pretty much the entire explanation.

Lawrence Weekly's lone no vote was in support of Hunt, who his constituents supported, but he didn't explain it.

Tom Collins' rambling sports analogies concluded, "I want the guy who's going to hit the ball the most." But he didn't say who that was.

The other five voted for Wolfson without explaining any reason.

They spent about 75 minutes praising everyone from the county manager to interim DA Mary-Anne Miller. Commissioners bragged about the transparency of the process, yet didn't share their reasoning. How is that transparent?

If those watching Tuesday's meeting hadn't read the newspapers, they wouldn't know what potential conflicts Scow was talking about.

Christensen, who appoints attorneys to defend indigent clients, might have a conflict if he won the DA's job because he then would be prosecuting the same people his office defends. A special prosecutor might have to be appointed (and paid big bucks) in some of the 34 pending capital cases in which Christensen could have insider knowledge.

When Scow mentioned "experience" as a reason for nominating Wolfson, was that a reference to Hunt, who has almost no experience either prosecuting or defending criminal cases? Or was she saying Wolfson's experience as a deputy district attorney, assistant U.S. attorney and defense attorney, as well as a city councilman, was better than Christensen's experience as deputy public defender, deputy prosecutor and a county administrator familiar with all aspects of the justice system, including Family Court?

Commission Chairwoman Susan Brager told them to discuss the appointment before a motion was made. She never said: Don't say whom you support or why.

Chris Giunchigliani actually said, "Everybody's a winner today."

"Drew, you shone. Steve, you're actually funny at times. John, your passion is always your strong suit." That didn't explain why Giunchigliani voted for Wolfson. (Her husband, Gary Gray, has been a paid consultant for Wolfson.)

Brager said to Christensen, "No matter where this goes, what an incredible person you are." She praised Wolfson for being articulate and caring. Hunt's passion was again cited.

Steve Sisolak said there are "no losers here today," another gag-me platitude. He judged all three fine men. No insights there.

Weekly asked for a 7-0 vote. Yet when the others went with Wolfson, he voted no without an explanation. Apparently he feared bucking his constituents, who said Hunt, former chairman of the Clark County Democratic Party, would be the fairest to the minority community.

Collins told Wolfson afterward, "You got my vote because of Weekly asking for a unanimous vote." Never said why he thought Hunt was best.

"American Idol" judges do a better job of explaining their decisions than our county commissioners did on this critical decision.

The public and the contenders deserved honest reasoning from the commissioners, especially because all three men were lockstep on issues.

Instead, we heard prattle more suitable for an awards show or a Little Miss pageant.

It was a transparent process that, in the end, fell far short of transparency.

Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. Email her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call her at (702) 383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/Morrison