A. The metropolitan judges of a metropolitan court shall select and appoint a court administrator who shall supervise all matters relating to the administration of the metropolitan court. The court administrator shall, after his appointment, be directly responsible to and work at the direction of the presiding judge of the metropolitan court.
B. The metropolitan court administrator shall annually prepare and submit a proposed budget approved by the presiding judge of the metropolitan court to the administrative office of the courts. The metropolitan court shall make monthly written reports to the administrative office of the courts as is currently required of all magistrates and shall otherwise comply with the rules and statutes regarding administration except as provided by this act.
C. All money for the operation and maintenance of the metropolitan court shall be paid by the state treasurer upon warrants of the secretary of finance and administration, supported by vouchers of the presiding judge of the metropolitan court and in accordance with budgets approved by the administrative office of the courts and the state budget division of the department of finance and administration.
History: Laws 1979, ch. 346, § 7; 1980, ch. 142, § 5.
ANNOTATIONSCompiler's notes. — The term "this act," referred to at the end of Subsection B, means Laws 1980, ch. 142, which is compiled as 34-8A-2 to 34-8A-4 and 34-8A-6 to 34-8A-8 NMSA 1978.
Supreme court control over metropolitan courts. — The supreme court has ultimate authority over administrative matters of the courts. Russillo v. Scarborough, 935 F.2d 1167 (10th Cir. 1991).
The supreme court's power of superintending control includes the authority to order the metropolitan court to terminate its court administrator. Russillo v. Scarborough, 935 F.2d 1167 (10th Cir. 1991).
Metropolitan court administrator was an "at-will" employee who could have been terminated with or without cause, and was not entitled to any grievance procedures or to notice or hearing at termination. Russillo v. Scarborough, 727 F. Supp. 1402 (D.N.M. 1989), aff'd, 935 F.2d 1167 (10th Cir. 1991).