Falmouth District Court
March 18, 2011 · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗
Published March 18, 2011 Audit covers July 1, 2008 – March 31, 2010 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023
source
“Based on our review, we determined that, except for the issues noted in the Audit Results section of this report, FDC (1) maintained adequate internal controls over certain fee and bail fund activity; (2) properly assessed, recorded, collected, deposited, and accounted for the fees examined; and (3) complied with applicable laws, rules, and regulations for the areas tested.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a state audit of the Falmouth District Court focused on how it handled certain court fees and bail money from July 1, 2008 through March 31, 2010.
“The purpose of our audit was to review FDC’s internal controls and compliance with state laws and regulations regarding certain fees and bail funds for the period July 1, 2008 to March 31, 2010.”
The Auditor’s office was reviewing selected district courts because court fees and bail can bring in public money, and prior audits had found issues worth checking.
“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.”
This matters because courts handle large amounts of public money, and weak tracking can make it harder to know what is owed and whether the money is collected correctly.
“Without an accounts receivable system, courts lack control over a significant source of revenue.”
For an ordinary resident, the issue is basic accountability: court money should be tracked and collected according to law, because those revenues help support court operations and public funds.
“These revenues generally help offset funding shortfalls to the courts’ appropriation accounts.”
The most concrete money issue was that Falmouth District Court did not fully apply a higher administrative probation fee, and auditors estimated the possible shortfall at up to $110,230.
“Based on court records, we estimated the amount involved to be as much as $110,230 over the period of July 2009 to March 2011.”
Auditors recommended better financial tracking through MassCourts, continued priority for Victim Witness fees, and changes to make sure probation fee increases are handled promptly.
“The AOTC and the AODC should continue developing and testing the financial module for the MassCourts system.”
The findings were not just about one courthouse’s paperwork; one weakness applied across every district court location, and millions in fees could have been tracked through a stronger system.
“Of the total revenues of approximately $78 million collected by all district courts during fiscal year 2009, over $35 million in 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.”
“Accounts receivable” means a system for tracking money people owe but have not yet paid. The audit says the court had cash records, but not a full system for controlling total amounts owed, payments, adjustments, and unpaid balances.
“Sound business practices advocate the use of an accounts receivable system with a control account and supporting subsidiary detail accounts to control revenues.”
8 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown
What the Auditor checked
- Partially Assess the adequacy of FDC’s internal controls over the assessment, collection, accounting, waiver, and community service in lieu of payment of certain fees and FDC’s internal controls over bail funds.
- Partially Determine the extent of controls for measuring, reporting, and monitoring effectiveness and efficiency regarding FDC’s compliance with applicable state laws, rules, and regulations; other state guidelines; and AOTC and AODC policies and procedures with respect to certain fees and bail funds.
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: Courts lacked control over a significant source of revenue and could not readily identify the total amount to be collected.
Standard: Sound business practices advocate the use of an accounts receivable system with a control account and supporting subsidiary detail accounts to control revenues.
1 recommendation
- The AOTC and the AODC should continue developing and testing the financial module for the MassCourts system and implement it at district courts once it works as expected.agency: already implemented
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "This has been accomplished by the installation and use of the Mass Courts accounting system, activated in this court in December, 2010."
Why it matters: Collection of Victim Witness fee assessments was delayed.
Standard: Section 8 of Chapter 258B of the General Laws requires the Victim Witness assessment to be the defendant’s first obligation. ( Section 8 of Chapter 258B of the General Laws; Acts and Resolves of 2003, Chapter 26, Section 45 )
1 recommendation
- FDC should continue giving first priority to Victim Witness fee assessments upon collection, unless AODC issues additional guidance.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "As noted in your report, past practice did not always give first priority to allocation of initial payments received to pay Victim Witness assessments."
Why it matters: The Trial Court and the Commonwealth did not receive all funds to which they were entitled.
Standard: Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriations Act amendment to Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws and Office of the Commissioner of Probation guidance. ( Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws )
3 recommendations
- FDC should promptly adjust its accounting system for monthly fee changes.agency: disagreed
- FDC should review current accounts, identify individuals on administrative probation paying the lesser amount, and make appropriate changes.agency: disagreed
- The Probation Office and Clerk-Magistrate’s Office should periodically compare case records to ensure corresponding information and avoid retroactive adjustments.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "As such this court has not disturbed the terms of the plea bargain entered in good faith prior to the increase in the Administrative fee."
Auditor: "Neither the First Justice nor the Clerk-Magistrate disagree with our main issue, which is that a decision was made to not charge the increased Administrative Probation Fee for people on Administrative Probation prior to June 30, 2009 and who would continue to be on Administrative Probation from July 1, 2009 onward."
Verified dollar findings
Estimated or sample-projected amounts - shown separately because they are not a hard-identified dollar figure.