Edgartown Division of the District Court Department

This is a Massachusetts State Auditor performance audit of the Edgartown Division of the District Court Department, covering July 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011.

“In accordance with Chapter 11, Section 12, of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) conducted a performance audit of the Edgartown Division of the District Court Department (EDC) for the period July 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011.”

Auditors checked whether the court had proper controls over cash, bail money, revenue, equipment inventory, and access to administrative offices.

“Our audit objective was to examine the adequacy of the internal controls EDC had established over certain activities, including cash management, bail funds, revenues, and fixed asset inventory related to the Judge’s Lobby, Clerk-Magistrate’s Office, and Probation Department.”

Inventory records that leave out cost and purchase information make it hard for the court to know the value of public property it is responsible for.

“As a result, EDC cannot accurately account for the value of the assets in its inventory.”

For residents, the audit gives a check on whether local court money and public equipment are being tracked properly, and whether security problems in court offices are being addressed.

“During our audit period, EDC collected $465,381 in revenue from sources such as fines, fees, surcharges, and penalties.”

The main formal finding was not missing equipment, but incomplete inventory records: all 68 items were found, yet required cost and acquisition details were absent.

“Specifically, although other key components of the inventory record are present, cost and acquisition data (e.g., date of invoice, invoice number, payment voucher number) were not included for any of the 68 equipment inventory items listed on EDC’s inventory record.”

The auditor recommended that the court fill in missing inventory information or estimate values using Trial Court guidance; the court said it later approximated many missing values.

“EDC should attempt either to gather information to complete the required data fields in its inventory record or to approximate these inventory values based on AOTC guidance.”

The audit is significant because it found a recordkeeping weakness for public assets and highlighted security issues that the local court could not fully fix on its own because the building was controlled by Dukes County.

“However, since the building is owned by Dukes County and controlled by the Dukes County Commissioners, the Clerk-Magistrate’s Office cannot independently implement all the improvements that are necessary to mitigate those risks.”

“Fixed asset inventory” means the court’s list of equipment and property, including details like where items are, what they cost, and when they were acquired.

“Tested all 68 fixed asset items listed on the EDC master inventory.”