From Texas Watchdog:
Further clouding the hearing is Hopson’s decision to conduct it in executive or secret session. Hopson said he exercised the option to conduct a closed hearing because the allegations were not made by formal criminal charge or in an ethics report. House Rule 4, Section 12 says:
“The General Investigating and Ethics Committee or a committee considering an impeachment, an address, the punishment of a member of the house, or any other matter of a quasi-judicial nature may meet in executive session for the limited purpose of examining a witness or deliberating, considering, or debating a decision, but no decision may be made or voted on except in a meeting that is open to the public and otherwise in compliance with the rules of the house.”
From the meeting notice:
The House General Investigating & Ethics Committee will meet in a public hearing pursuant to Rule 4, Section 10(1) of the House Rules. The Committee may also meet in executive session in E2.028 pursuant to Rule 4, Section 12 of the House Rules. (emphasis added)
I understand why Rep. Hopson wishes this to be a closed door hearing. It is his responsibility to protect members from unsubstantiated allegations such as this. I get that.
But in this atmosphere, I think it would be best to hold this one in full public view. The representative charged by Rep. Hughes in this affair should tell Rep. Hopson to release his name and let the chips fall where they may.
Now, about that $42,000 in campaign donations that Speaker Straus gave to Rep. Hopson and the idea that there is some sort of backroom deal going on. How in the hell did Straus know in February that he would need to cut this deal? Answer: he didn’t. Speaker Straus, as has been widely reported, gave a ton of money to Republicans this cycle to get them elected. Nothing untoward about that – wouldn’t it be nice if, ahem, a few others had done as much for other Republicans?
But no, instead we get hints of “backroom deals”. Oh, and Rep. Hughes (from Texas Watchdog):
When asked if he was aware of Straus’ donations to Hopson, Hughes said he believed it would be inappropriate to comment on it prior to meeting with Hopson’s committee. When asked if he was concerned that Straus’ support for Hopson might interfere with the impartiality of the hearing, Hughes again said he thought commenting would be inappropriate.
To that, it should be noted that (a) if Hughes didn’t know, he’s about the only person in Texas politics that didn’t and (b) he knows damn well that there will be no interference due to Straus’ contribution. So much for the “honorable” Rep. Hughes’ integrity.