Barnstable District Court

This is a State Auditor review of how the Barnstable District Court handled certain court fees and bail money from July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009.

“The purpose of our audit was to review BDC’s internal controls and compliance with state laws and regulations regarding certain fees and bail funds for the period July 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009.”

The Auditor chose Barnstable as one of the district courts to examine because it collected major criminal-case fees, and prior audits had raised concerns about bail handling in courts.

“Additionally, we chose to examine bail activity at the district court locations based on issues identified at previous court audits conducted by the Office of the State Auditor, as bail can also be a source of revenue if defendants do not appear in court as required by the terms of their release from jail.”

These issues matter because poor documentation and tracking can mean the court cannot prove people are following probation terms or that the state is getting money it is legally owed.

“As a result of the stipulated procedure for granting probation fee waivers not being followed, there is a breakdown in internal controls, BDC has inadequate assurance that probationers are complying with the terms of their conditions of probation, and the Commonwealth may not be receiving the funds to which it is entitled.”

For an ordinary citizen, this is about whether court money is handled fairly, consistently, and with enough oversight to protect public funds.

“These revenues generally help offset funding shortfalls to the courts’ appropriation accounts.”

The clearest money problem was that Barnstable did not always collect the higher administrative probation fee after it took effect, costing the Trial Court and Commonwealth possible revenue.

“As a result, the Trial Court and the Commonwealth did not receive all the funds to which they were entitled, which we estimated to be as much as an additional $19,285 for the month of July 2009 alone.”

The report recommends better court orders and record checks, plus continued work on a computerized system to track amounts owed and collected.

“The AOTC and the AODC should continue developing and testing the financial module for the MassCourts system.”

This was not just a paperwork issue at one courthouse; the report says all 62 district courts lacked this kind of receivables system, affecting a large amount of fee revenue.

“Of the total revenues of approximately $78 million collected by all district courts during fiscal year 2009, over $35 million of fees collected for all 62 district court locations in that year could have been processed through an accounts receivable system if the courts had one.”

An accounts receivable system means a tracking system for money people owe, not just money already paid; the Auditor says courts need that to manage unpaid balances better.

“An accounts receivable system would also be an important management tool to help age and analyze outstanding balances for further follow-up action and would provide an extra control feature to minimize risk of misstatement of court assets.”