Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Audit Explorer - what the State Auditor found

← all audits

Berkshire Division of the Superior Court Department

July 2, 2015 · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗

Published July 2, 2015 Audit covers July 1, 2012 – March 31, 2014 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023

In plain English
The audit found two main problems: the court sometimes returned bail before required lawyer fees were paid, and it did not keep strong enough records of furniture and equipment.
source
“Below is a summary of our findings and recommendations, with links to each page listed.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a state performance audit of the Berkshire Superior Court covering selected operations from July 1, 2012 through March 31, 2014.

“This report details the audit objectives, scope, methodology, findings, and recommendations for the audit period, July 1, 2012 through March 31, 2014.”
Why was it audited?

Auditors checked whether the court had proper controls and followed the rules in the areas they reviewed.

“This audit was undertaken to review certain aspects of BSC’s operations and determine whether BSC had established adequate internal controls and was complying with applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and other guidance in the areas reviewed.”
Why it matters

If bail is returned too soon, the state may miss money it is legally owed.

“As a result, the Commonwealth may not be receiving all the money to which it is entitled.”
What's in it for me?

For residents, this matters because public money and public property should be tracked and protected, and court rules should be followed consistently.

“As a result, Commonwealth assets whose historical cost we estimate at $180,382 may be at risk of loss, misuse, or misappropriation, and inventory may not be properly reported.”
The bottom line

The court passed some parts of the audit, but failed on bail disbursement and inventory controls.

“Did BSC properly disburse bail funds?”
What happens next

The audit recommends that the Clerk’s Office check case and accounting records before returning bail, and that the court improve inventory tracking and training.

“Upon a surety’s request for the return of bail, the Clerk’s Office should review the case file and its accounting records to ensure that the defendant has paid the legal counsel fee before releasing the outstanding bail to the surety.”
Why it's significant

The problems were specific but important: three tested bail cases broke the fee rule, and more than half of listed inventory items had no cost recorded.

“For 3 (38%) of the 8 cases for which bail was posted and a legal fee assessed, the Clerk’s Office returned bail to the surety before the legal counsel fee was paid, contrary to statutory requirements.”
Jargon, unpacked

A surety is the person who posted bail for a defendant; before that bail is returned, the court must make sure the required legal counsel fee has been paid.

“Bail is the security given to the court by defendants or their sureties to obtain release to ensure appearance in court, at a future date, on criminal matters.”

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

The Clerk of Courts’ Office returned bail without consistently verifying that legal counsel fees had been paid.
cash handlinginternal controls

Why it matters: The Commonwealth may not receive all money to which it is entitled.

Standard: Chapter 211D, Section 2A(g), of the Massachusetts General Laws requires the Clerk of Courts not to release bail until the legal counsel fee is paid. ( Chapter 211D, Section 2A(g), of the Massachusetts General Laws )

1 recommendation
  • Upon a surety’s request for the return of bail, the Clerk’s Office should review the case file and its accounting records to ensure that the defendant has paid the legal counsel fee before releasing the outstanding bail to the surety.
BSC did not maintain a complete inventory or annually verify furniture and equipment.
asset/inventory controlinternal controlsrecordkeeping/documentation

Why it matters: Commonwealth assets may be at risk of loss, misuse, or misappropriation, and inventory may not be properly reported.

Standard: The Office of the State Comptroller’s Internal Control Guide and Trial Court memoranda require inventory controls, annual reconciliation, tagging, and reporting. ( Office of the State Comptroller Internal Control Guide; Fiscal Year 2004 Memo #16; Fiscal Year 2009 Memo #8 )

2 recommendations
  • BSC should make sure that it documents historical costs on the inventory list, reconciles the list annually, and provides a record of this reconciliation to the Trial Court once it is completed.agency: agreed
  • If the guidance provided in the memoranda on this matter is unclear, BSC should request training from the Trial Court.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Berkshire Superior Court Probation Department will comply with the audit recommendations and are in the process of updating the inventory list."

Verified dollar findings

Projected / estimated $180,382 not in headline

Estimated or sample-projected amounts - shown separately because they are not a hard-identified dollar figure.

$180,382 - estimated historical cost of assets at risk