Judges, law enforcement officials and union workers joined together Tuesday to release an accountability plan for the Administrative Office of the Courts, calling on the Legislature to increase the agency's openness and ensure that state courts do not have to close one day a month.

"It seems to me that we ought to have our priorities," said Tom Hollenhorst, associate justice of the state Court of Appeal, in a press briefing announcing the accountability proposal. "You can't provide public services when the courts are closed."

It was the latest salvo by critics of the state's judicial branch leadership, who made the choice this past summer to close state courts one day a month because of budget problems. Recently, that criticism has grown beyond the internal group of judges, courthouse workers and local law enforcement to include the other two branches of government.

Today, the Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review is holding a hearing on spending and transparency in the Administrative Office of the Courts. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's technology watchdog is expected to be there to comment on the courts' massive case management computer system project, which a recent Bee investigation found is years from completion and could cost close to $2 billion.

The hearing follows months of vocal opposition from judges over spending decisions by the Judicial Council – the state courts' policy-making body – and its staff agency, the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The administrative office has ballooned in recent years, with its staff doubling and its budget growing 35 percent – 19 percent when adjusted for inflation – since 2003-04.

After months of blistering criticism, the courts administrator also is fighting back, saying many of the complaints are based on half-truths or distorted logic. Ron Overholt, chief deputy director of the administrative office, blamed much of the criticism on the natural frustration of judges and workers dealing with budget cuts.

Ronald George, chief justice of the state Supreme Court and the man ultimately in charge of the state's courts, was more blunt.

"Much of the loudest, much of the shrillest criticism – and I'm being charitable here – are from people who aren't fully informed," George said. "A lot of this is an effort to dismantle the statewide administration of justice because with the statewide administration of justice comes accountability."

Seeds of dissent

After becoming chief justice in May 1996, George visited all 58 counties, traveling close to 13,000 miles, he said. Many still were controlled locally, and many had significant money problems.

"There were courts that were going belly up," George said.

Alpine County's court reported it had $8 in its bank account. Other more major courts "weren't able to meet their basic fiscal requirements," he added.

"My responsibility was to get a permanent solution to this," George said.

So he and his staff pushed to move the courts from more than 220 municipal and superior court entities reliant on 58 counties to a uniform body that answered to the state.

Ultimately the Legislature and voters agreed, approving the power shift in the late 1990s.

As the state courts agency's responsibility grew, so did its staffing and budget.

At the start of the 2003-04 fiscal year the administrative office had 528 budgeted positions. Today there are 1,065, of which 890 are filled, according to office figures.

The central administrative office budget also has grown from $99 million in 2003-04 – $119 million in 2009 dollars – to $134.4 million last fiscal year, according to administrative office figures. The entire state judicial branch's budget was $3.9 billion last year.

The growth is natural given the agency's increased responsibility, Overholt said. The office now controls 504 court facilities – about 17 million square feet of space – handles finances for courts in 58 counties, provides legal counsel once provided by county counsels, and maintains a statewide emergency plan, Overholt said.

"We have an enormous system, and it has to be adequately serviced," George said. "To me it's disingenuous for some people to ignore the shift in responsibility."

Spending fuels the fire

Fueling the criticism have been claims of improper spending and other allegations, many of which have circulated in the legal press and on the blog "AOC Watcher," which has become the repository for all muck on the administrative office.

Targets include a training event for new judges held at a San Jose hotel over the summer, at a cost of $337,000; new hires at the administrative office despite a hiring freeze; and allegations that a former human resources employee falsified time sheets and skipped town with administrative office money.

All, critics say, raise questions about leadership.

Controversy surrounding the administrative office is not likely to evaporate anytime soon. If anything, it likely will grow as the Legislature begins looking at the agency, state courts continue to close one day a month and financial conditions remain dire.

Yet the criticism seems to have come as somewhat of a surprise to the Administrative Office of the Courts.

"How did the AOC become something anyone cared about?" Overholt said. "It's not just that we suddenly went on a hiring binge and power trip. The structure of the court system fundamentally changed."

Call The Bee's Robert Lewis, (916) 321-1061.