Questions about executive pay in Placer Superior Court have prompted the state Judicial Council to look into salaries and benefits of court administrators throughout California.

The Judicial Council is the policymaking body for the state courts system.

The scrutiny comes after the Administrative Office of the Courts, the council's staff agency, finished a special audit in April that found that John Mendes, former court executive officer for Placer Superior Court, received $470,000 in apparently unauthorized compensation from July 2001 through March 2009.

The administrative office provided The Bee a list of pay – both base salary and compensation including most benefits – budgeted for all court CEOs statewide in fiscal 2008-09.

The list shows several had higher salaries or total compensation than Mendes, whose budgeted base salary was $197,084 with total compensation budgeted at $271,183. The figures, however, don't reflect perks such as management leave and automobile allowance, all of which increased Mendes' pay to more than $304,000 in 2008.

The new study will examine all forms of compensation to determine if other CEOs have received similar benefits.

While officials in the administrative office have been careful to say there is nothing to indicate abuse within the court system, they do want to create more uniform rules governing compensation.

"The procedures need to be very clear about the responsibility of the court to set the compensation," said William Vickrey, administrative director of the courts.

As Placer's top officer, Mendes ran day-to-day operations for the Superior Court, overseeing staff and budgets. The audit found that his total compensation – salary plus benefits – rose from $162,307 in calendar 2002 to $304,862 by 2008. His base salary increased 11 times in seven years, from $120,000 in 2001 to $195,000 in 2008.

The audit found that presiding judges at the time now have no recollection of approving many of the raises and that written authorizations were lacking.

Mendes' attorney, Barbara Lawless, told The Bee in an earlier interview that Mendes' raises were approved either orally or in writing, blaming judges' faulty record-keeping for the allegations.

While the audit focused primarily on Mendes, it also raised questions about judicial supervision. "Appropriate oversight should be implemented by the (presiding judge) and bench," it states.

Through 2000, the courts were part of the counties, and administrative employees were governed by county personnel rules. In 2001 the courts became autonomous entities governed by the Judicial Council. Courts now are considered their own employers and have the authority to set salaries as they see fit.

While the Judicial Council requires the presiding judge of each court to approve a CEO's salary and benefits, the rules and processes for setting compensation vary from court to court, Vickrey said.

The Placer audit prompted the council to request that the administrative office study procedures for setting salaries and benefits statewide.

The administrative office is reviewing CEO compensation at each court to see if similar problems exist elsewhere.

Roger Picquet, former presiding judge of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court, said general rules could be helpful but said "the devil will be in the details."

"It's kind of hard to ever accept the idea that one model fits all needs," Picquet said. "If it becomes overly restrictive – these proposed rules – and started interfering with our ability to recruit and retain good people, then that would be a problem."

Vickrey said the office has 14 auditors who conduct regular audits of state courts about once every four years, as well as special reviews.

While the Placer audit alleges no wrongdoing, Vickrey said it raises issues the public should be concerned about.

"I think you should care, because we want the courts to operate in a manner that's transparent," Vickrey said.

Courts need to maintain public confidence and be good stewards of taxpayer money, he added.

Mendes left Placer in mid-April, the same month the audit was completed. Court officials wouldn't say if he left voluntarily or was fired, citing rules barring them from discussing personnel matters.

In early May he went to work in the finance department at Yolo Superior Court, where Jim Perry, a former subordinate of his, is now the CEO.

Mendes stopped working for Yolo last week – the day after The Bee's story on the Placer audit was published. Officials in Yolo declined to offer a reason for his departure.

Mendes hasn't returned calls for comment.

In October, the administrative office will present the findings of its executive compensation review along with policy recommendations to the Judicial Council, said Lynn Holton, a council spokeswoman.

The Placer court has made several changes in how it sets executive compensation in the aftermath of the critical audit, said Jake Chatters, that court's new executive officer.

The changes include allowing no raises without written authorization from the entire bench; more frequent performance reviews by the court; and weekly meetings between the CEO and the presiding judge or assistant presiding judge.

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