Franklin Division of the Superior Court Department

This is a state performance audit of the Franklin Division of the Superior Court Department, covering July 1, 2012 through August 31, 2013.

“This report details the audit objectives, scope, methodology, findings, and recommendations for the audit period, July 1, 2012 through August 31, 2013.”

Auditors checked whether the court kept accurate financial records, protected equipment and evidence, handled bail and escrow funds properly, and had good internal controls.

“The audit was undertaken to determine whether FSC’s (1) financial records are accurate, up to date, and maintained in accordance with established criteria; (2) inventory systems are adequate to safeguard furniture and equipment; (3) evidence exhibits are appropriately tracked and secured by FSC’s Clerk of Courts’ Office (the Clerk’s Office); (4) internal controls over civil escrow fund and bail fund management are adequate; and (5) overall internal control structure is suitably designed and implemented to safeguard Commonwealth assets in compliance with Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989, An Act Relative to Improving the Internal Controls within State Agencies.”

These problems matter because public property, public money, and court-ordered obligations may not have been fully protected or collected.

“As a result, Commonwealth assets with an estimated historical cost of $52,682 may be at risk of loss, misuse, or misappropriation, and inventory may not be properly reported.”

For ordinary citizens, the report is about whether a local court is handling taxpayer-funded assets, court fees, bail, and probation oversight responsibly.

“FSC presides over civil, criminal, and other matters falling within its territorial jurisdiction of Franklin County.”

The court fixed several older problems, but the audit still found weaknesses in inventory tracking, probation fee handling, legal counsel fee collection, and vehicle-title bail.

“Additionally, FSC has corrected deficiencies cited in our prior audit report (No. 2006-1116-3O), which included conducting a risk assessment and developing an internal control plan; performing monthly revenue reconciliations; and processing, depositing, and accounting for cash activity.”

The auditors recommended that the court tighten procedures, including holding hearings when probationers fall behind on required payments or community service.

“The Probation Office should hold an administrative hearing after a probationer fails to pay the monthly probation supervision fee for two consecutive months or fails to perform the required community-service hours in lieu of payment.”

The findings could mean the state missed money it was owed and could not easily confirm whether some probationers completed required service.

“As a result, the Probation Office has inadequate assurance that probationers are complying with their probation conditions, and the Commonwealth may not be receiving the funds from monthly probation supervision fees, or the hours of community service, to which it is entitled.”

A legal counsel fee is usually a $150 charge for a defendant who gets a court-appointed lawyer because they cannot afford one.

“The legal counsel fee is an amount, usually $150, that an indigent defendant who is provided with a court-appointed lawyer is responsible for paying.”