AS THE IMPACT OF THE COURTS HAS EXPANDED AND DIVERSIFIED, CITIZENS WITH A VARIETY OF INTERESTS AND PERSPECTIVES HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY INTERESTED IN WHAT THE COURTS DO. CONTROL OF THE COURTS RESTS LARGELY WITH THE POWER TO MAKE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND WITH THE EXISTENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CAPABLE OF HANDLING COURT MANAGEMENT TASKS. COURT REFORMERS CREATED RULEMAKING PROCEDURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES TO ASSURE THAT JUDGES WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE PROCEDURAL RULES AND TO CONTROL THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS. IRONICALLY, RULEMAKING AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES ARE PROVING TO BE THE VEHICLES FOR PARTICIPATION BY PERSONS OTHER THAN JUDGES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COURTS. WHY AND HOW INCREASED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN COURT RULEMAKING CAME ABOUT ARE DISCUSSED, WITH REFERENCE TO VARIOUS PROPOSALS FOR BROADENING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN RULEMAKING, PRIMARILY BY PROVIDING FOR INPUT BY LEGISLATORS AND LAWYERS. THREE POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS IN COURT ADMINISTRATION ARE CONTEMPLATED: THE DEMISE OF THE PROFESSIONAL COURT ADMINISTRATOR, THE EVOLUTION OF A GENUINE MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN JUDGES AND ADMINISTRATORS, AND THE CREATION OF A 'JUDICIARY TECHNOCRACY' AMONG COURT ADMINISTRATORS. THE THIRD POSSIBILITY IMPLIES THE SPECTER OF A MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION IN THE COURTS WHEREBY WHATEVER ACCOUNTABILITY THE PUBLIC HAS THROUGH JUDGES IS UNDERMINED BY THE LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGERS HAVE TO JUDGES. (LKM)