Sometimes what seem like conspiracies are mere coincidences

Could it be a coincidence that when Steve Wolfson is sworn in on Feb. 21 as the new Clark County district attorney that County Commissioner Mary Beth Scow’s son returns to the DA’s job that same day?

After all, it was Commissioner Scow who made the motion that passed 6-1 to appoint Wolfson.

Did she have an ulterior motive?

It sounded like a story to probe, so I did.

But sometimes a coincidence is a coincidence, and in this case, the timing is key to solving the mystery.

Yes, after more than six years with the DA’s office, Richard Scow went to the public defender’s office on Oct. 15.

Then on Nov. 1, District Attorney David Roger announced he would be resigning as of Jan. 3, one year into a four-year term.

No, there was no quid pro quo that his mom would nominate Wolfson for DA in exchange for her son’s return to the DA’s office.

Wolfson confirmed, and timing proves, that was all arranged by Assistant District Attorney Chris Owens, who had been trying to get Scow back ever since he left in October.

Owens arranged for Scow’s return without asking Wolfson’s opinion.

Owens wanted Scow back because he needs experienced attorneys who can help train less-experienced attorneys, and Scow fit the bill.

“Right now we’re hurting for experienced attorneys and our openings are for new attorneys. They take six months to a year to train, so we’ll put Richard on a track team to help with training,” Owens said.

When he told Roger he was trying to get Scow to return, Roger said that was fine. Wolfson said it was fine after the fact.

Scow left as a chief deputy DA with an annual salary of $98,072 and is coming back as a deputy DA, a lower classification but at the same salary.

Scow’s reasons for leaving? Conflicts with his supervisor and the time required to meet the five-trials-a-year rule Roger had established. He was chief deputy DA on the repeat offenders unit and in June became a bishop with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which required more of his time.

“I felt myself in the position where I was not able to use my prosecutorial discretion the way I wanted,” Scow said.

He said his supervisor was critical of plea bargains he negotiated and wanted him to negotiate for harsher penalties. He wouldn’t have left if he had known there was going to be a change in administration.

He will be returning to a track team under a different supervisor, and with the elimination of the five-trial rule, he will have time to balance work, family and church.

“I didn’t have anything to do with it,” said Commissioner Scow, the mother of nine. “I had nothing at all to do with his leaving the office or his decision to go back. My philosophy is that my kids need to be responsible to do their own thing.”

One reason it seemed like there might be a quid pro quo is that Scow, one of the least vocal of the commissioners, made the motion to appoint Wolfson and without any further discussion, votes were cast.

“I expected there to be more discussion,” she said. “I was stunned.”

As I wrote in a previous column, she was the only one to explain her reasoning, citing Wolfson’s experience and fewer potential conflicts. The other five who vote for him never explained why they preferred him over the other two.

So Sherlock, sometimes there are coincidences instead of conspiracies. Sometimes.

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