There is a waggish take on bureaucracies and bureaucrats that observes they resist reform because a powerful bureaucrat would rather see his or her agency fail as long as they can retain control. Any fix that threatens to eliminate or replace incompetent managers, however dreadful their performance, is resisted with the ferocity of a cornered badger. This instinct for self-preservation is not limited to government. Try tangling with a project manager in the private sector. Generally, we find large corporations and governmental regulatory schemes both evolve into feudal systems masquerading as hierarchies.

Long-serving supervisors throw up ramparts and dig alligator-filled moats to protect against messengers with news of change – all of which brings us to the case of the Colorado Supreme Court and its management of the state’s judicial department. Nearly four years have elapsed since we first learned that Mindy Masias, a recently fired employee and acting chief of staff, had subsequently been awarded a $2.5 million contract to provide two years of “management training” within the department. A whistleblower alleged her sweetheart deal was actually hush money designed to prevent the disgruntled manager, who was passed over for permanent appointment to the top job in the department, from dumping sordid tales of judicial misconduct beneath the black robes of Colorado courts into the public square.

For the moment, let’s set aside whether instances of sexual harassment, as well as aberrant and odious behavioral peccadilloes, were routinely swept under the rugs of Colorado’s court chambers. Without knowing whether the fiscal improprieties which prompted Masias’ dismissal were merely a jiggering of an expense account or placing a finger on departmental contracting practices – $2.5 million seems a surpassingly ridiculous appreciation for her potential skills as a management consultant. Who fires and then hires back a thief, a slacker or an incompetent? You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to recognize something here doesn’t meet a simple smell test.

Colorado has a Judicial Discipline Commission that usually operates well out of public view, dismissing nearly 80% of public complaints against judges from failed plaintiffs resentful over adverse decisions and equally frivolous allegations of judicial bias. It’s rare an investigation of judicial misfeasance is undertaken. The allegation that the chief justice of the Supreme Court approved the consulting contract in question launched a tug-of-war between the commission and the court itself. Colorado’s state Constitution incorporates the separation of powers embedded in the federal constitution, separating the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Therefore, as Harry Truman noted, “the buck stops here” for judicial department with the chief justice.

Therefore, it raised more than a few eyebrows when Chief Justice Nathan “Ben” Coats abruptly resigned once the proverbial manure hit the fan. Make of that what you will. It’s hard not to harbor sympathy for current Chief Justice Boatright, who was left with janitorial challenges. The court’s decision to hire independent legal consultants in competition with the Disciplinary Commission and then drag its feet in cooperating and funding their independent investigation appears a significant blunder. It should be said that judges are rarely selected for their managerial skills or experience, but rather for their legal acumen. This creates a natural tension between the professional staff and judges. Who’s actually steering the boat?

The court’s consultants have reported there was nothing amiss in the award of the original consulting contract. Nothing to see there, just administrative business as usual. This finding defies belief. They also discovered staff morale is abysmal, faith in the neutrality of human resources managers is in the tank and there’s no formal process for reporting workplace grievances. These results pulled a reluctant Legislature into a fracas not of their own making. An interim study committee is wrestling with legislative recommendations that might restore confidence in the Judicial Department.

There seems to be acknowledgment that an ombudsman and/or inspector general’s office is needed with clearly defined authorities. Separating its investigatory function from disciplinary determinations remained fuzzy during the committee’s deliberations. The Supreme Court is determined to play this role, with an exception for charges against members of the Supreme Court itself – which is precisely how this mess developed in the first place. In smaller courts, the arrival of investigators can immediately implicate complainants.

The Judicial Discipline Commission had to appeal to the Legislature for independent funding, which was provided, and its separate investigation remains outstanding. Interim Committee Chair, Sen. Pete Lee (D-Colorado Springs), has had to step aside because of residency challenges in El Paso County. The incoming 2023 Legislature will have to sort out this considerable controversy. Our courts exercise considerable influence over individual lives. I’m aware of an instance several years ago where a probation officer was confirmed to be trading privileges for sexual favors. He was permitted to retire. Was that judicious or a cover-up?

Miller Hudson is a public affairs consultant and a former Colorado legislator.