Southern Nevada's judiciary came under sharp criticism following the publication of a scathing Los Angeles Times investigation that revealed what most Las Vegas lawyers already know: Judges routinely fail to disclose conflicts of interest, solicit campaign contributions from parties before them and rule in favor of lawyers who support their election campaigns.

After months of hinting that the system was ripe for examination, the Nevada Supreme Court on Thursday announced the creation of study commission that will evaluate every facet of the judiciary. The 28-member panel will get right to work, with its first meeting scheduled for next month. The commission could issue some recommendations to the 2007 Legislature, but might not complete its review until sometime in 2008.

The task force will be called the Article 6 Commission, named after the part of the Nevada Constitution that authorized state courts.

"The Supreme Court has great expectations for this commission and hopes it will provide a blueprint for our judicial future," said Chief Justice Bob Rose, who will chair the panel's first meeting, then retire on Dec. 31.

Given the findings of the Los Angeles Times series, Rose said the commission would examine the influence of campaign fundraising in judicial elections and proceedings, as well as ways to discipline judges and hold them accountable to taxpayers.

That sounds good, but the commission is loaded with members who have unbreakable ties to the state's political establishment, including current Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, incoming Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley and former state Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa. Las Vegas attorney Gene Porter, a former District Court judge who was a central figure in the Times investigation, is on the commission, for goodness sake.

One issue the commission can't overlook is the process by which the Supreme Court grants "senior" status to judges, appointments that forever insulate substitute jurists from voters. Just a few years ago, Supreme Court Justices Deborah Agosti and Miriam Shearing were granted such status when they declined to seek re-election following their unpopular 2003 decision in Guinn v. Legislature.

The public will know this panel is a sham if the high court, as it holds meetings on "reform," moves to give outgoing Justice Nancy Becker a senior post in Clark County despite her resounding election defeat two weeks ago. Voters clearly intended to send Justice Becker, a judicial activist and supporter of the Guinn v. Legislature ruling, into retirement.

Thankfully, all of the commission's meetings will be open to the public. Secrecy and the judiciary don't mix.