ONE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT SUGGESTS THAT TRIAL COURT ADMINISTRATORS BE SELECTED BY THE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR. THIS PROCESS REPRESENTS THE CLASSICAL BUREAUCRATIC MODEL OF ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS STRICTLY HIERARCHICAL IN NATURE. TRIAL COURT ADMINISTRATORS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CENTRALIZED, ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL AND DIRECTION. THE MODEL PRESUMES THAT POLICIES ORIGINATED FROM THE TOP, NAMELY THE SUPREME COURT THROUGH THE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, ARE DIRECTED DOWN THROUGH THE RANKS TO COMPLIANT LOCAL ADMINISTRATORS. THIS MODEL IS INEFFECTIVE IN THIS CASE FOR SEVERAL REASONS: (1) PERSUASION AND ENTICEMENT ARE MORE APPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES OF MANAGING PROFESSIONALS THAN THIS MODEL'S COERCIVE MEASURES; (2) THE STANDARDIZED PROCEDURES IT ASSUMES LEAVE NO ROOM FOR FLEXIBILITY IN DEALING WITH OTHER PROFESSIONALS; (3) AN INDIVIDUAL CANNOT EFFECTIVELY SERVE BOTH THE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR AND THE LOCAL CHIEF JUDGE; AND (4) OVERCENTRALIZATION TENDS TO REDUCE THE INTEREST AND COOPERATION OF THE LOWER COURTS IN JUDICIAL REFORM. THE SECOND MAJOR PROPOSAL SUGGESTS THAT TRIAL COURT ADMINISTRATORS BE APPOINTED BY THE CHIEF OR PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE GENERAL JURISDICTION COURT. THIS APPROACH ELIMINATES MOST OF THE OBJECTIONS TO THE FIRST MODEL. HOWEVER, IT HAS PROVEN UNSATISFACTORY IN PRACTICE. THREE MAJOR PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN NOTED: (1) EVIDENCE OF PERSONAL FAVORITISM IN THE SELECTION PROCESS, WHICH REDUCES THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATORS; (2) A LACK OF ASSURANCE THAT LOCAL APPOINTEES WILL BE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION; AND (3) A NATURAL TENDENCY TO SELECT INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL BE CONSTANTLY DEFERENTIAL THUS WHO WILL NOT ACTIVELY SEEK REFORMS. THE PROPOSED METHOD OF SELECTION CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS: (1) STATE SUPREME COURTS SHOULD ESTABLISH UNIFORM QUALIFICATIONS FOR TRIAL COURT ADMINISTRATORS; (2) ALL PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THEIR CREDENTIALS TO THE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR; (3) THE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD SUBMIT A LIST OF QUALIFIED CANDIDATES TO THE LOCAL COURT JUDGES; (4) THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD BE SELECTED EITHER BY A MAJORITY OF THE JUDGES IN THE GENERAL JURISDICTION COURT, OR BY THE CHIEF JUDGE WITH VETO POWER GRANTED A MAJORITY OF THE OTHERS. A TABLE LISTS POSSIBLE SELECTION CRITERIA. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (VDA)