Brooks expulsion

The case for booting Steven Brooks from the Assembly was air-tight and iron-clad more than a month ago. Yet state lawmakers, in trying to demonstrate due diligence and avoid a rush to judgment, did nearly everything possible to diminish the credibility of the unprecedented expulsion.

Brooks is a shell of his former self. We have seen a public official go through a very public mental health meltdown, featuring multiple arrests and public displays of paranoia. The criminal prosecutions of Brooks will play out in public — in two states, following Brooks’ arrest Thursday night in California after a police chase. The process of removing Brooks from office, an action never before taken against a Nevada lawmaker in nearly 150 years of statehood, cried out for openness.

Lawmakers responded by keeping their investigation into Brooks secret. The Select Committee on the Assembly, which led the investigation, deliberated behind closed doors Tuesday night. Its investigative report of some 900 pages, including records that are inarguably public, were kept not only from the press and the public, but the nearly three dozen Assembly members who didn’t serve on the committee yet were obligated to vote on the action.

To better understand the outrageousness of this step, imagine lawmakers voting on bills they were expressly forbidden to read.

The committee was pushed into the shadows by independent counsel Mark Ferrario and its chairman, Assemblyman William Horne, because they were more concerned with Brooks’ privacy than the public’s right to have access to its business.

When Brooks sought and won elected office, he gave up much of his expectation of privacy. When he was arrested, then arrested again, he gave up the rest. Confidentiality cannot be justified when a public official has been charged with multiple crimes, regardless of the circumstances. The committee was created to investigate Brooks because lawmakers wanted to appear to be thorough. But no one could judge the committee’s thoroughness and thoughtfulness because no one was allowed to witness its work.

Brooks clearly was unfit for office from Day One of the session. His instability frightened everyone around him. The public would have been better served by a vote to expel Brooks last month, with no committee recommendation at all. That would have allowed a replacement lawmaker to represent the people of District 17 for most of the regular session. Their interests were forgotten here.

The Legislature removed Brooks on Thursday, achieving the required two-thirds margin by voice vote. Lawmakers wouldn’t even attach their names to the decision. All this proves the necessity of strong open meeting and public records laws, which the Legislature imposes on every Nevada government entity but itself. This was an emotional decision for lawmakers, as evidenced by the anguish displayed during Thursday’s vote. No doubt, those emotions played into decisions to keep most of the process from the public. Those decisions should have been guided by law, instead. Media organizations have demanded the Brooks investigative report be released.

Thankfully, the Steven Brooks distraction is over — in Carson City, at least. He’s no longer an assemblyman, and the Legislature can get on with the important business of the final two months of the 2013 session. Lawmakers will need to rebuild the public trust they violated in seeking secrecy over sunshine.