They seem to think so. According to the Austin American Statesman:
When the Sunset Advisory Commission, which is legislatively charged with determining if state agencies are operating efficiently, asked for records of meetings of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the commission refused. The commission, which hears misconduct complaints levied against the state's 4,000 judges, argued that "its meetings are closed to everyone, including the Sunset Commission and its staff," according to the sunset agency's report on the judicial conduct commission, released this month.
Not only that, the report said, but the judges' commission refused to grant state investigators permission to read any of the memoranda about its rulings because of attorney-client privilege.
The denials, in effect, prevented the auditors from determining not only if the commission operated efficiently, but also if its deliberations concerning judges — most of whom are elected — were fair or impartial.
"As a result, staff could not assess the commission's primary duty," the report concluded. "By preventing a full review, the Commission on Judicial Conduct seriously limits the ability of the Sunset Commission and the Legislature to assess the oversight of judges in Texas, as required by law."
The reason for the refusal seems to be the need for judicial independence:
The judicial commission argued that, as a judicial organization, it is not subject to the same type of review as other state agencies.
As far as withholding records from the sunset inspectors, "it's not our closed records policy," Willing said. "It's the constitution and the statute."
By law, the only time the commission is required to reveal information about its deliberations is during what are known as "formal proceedings" and when it issues a public sanction against a judge. Both of those are rare events.
Last year, only a fifth of the commission's disciplinary actions involved a public sanction against a judge. And, over the past 10 years, the commission has held a formal proceeding only 12 times, the sunset report stated.
The Sunset Advisory Commission argues that this refusal to release records is a probem:
"Unlike most state agencies that must operate openly and transparently," the report concluded, "the commission operates largely behind closed doors to protect the confidentiality of the judges it oversees, most of whom are elected officials.
"While Sunset recognizes the need to protect judges from public disclosure of unfair or unwarranted complaints stemming from individuals unhappy with the outcome of a case or from political opponents, this must be balanced against the public's right to know that the process is working fairly and effectively when judges misuse or abuse the substantial authority they have been granted."
2302s should take note since this points out an unusual aspect of the Texas executive, the fact that every (or most every) agency has to be reviewed from time to time, which gives the state the opportunity to terminate the agency if it is no longer performing it delegated duty efficiently.
For more info:
- The Sunset Advisory Commission.
- The State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
