Orleans District Court

This is a state audit of the Orleans Division of the District Court Department, focused on selected court fees and bail funds from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2010.

“The purpose of our audit was to review ODC’s internal controls and compliance with state laws and regulations regarding certain fees and bail funds for the period July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2010.”

The Auditor reviewed this court because district courts collect large amounts of fees and bail-related money, and prior audits had found issues worth checking at other 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.”

Court fees are public money. If courts do not track what is owed and how payments are applied, money can be delayed, misdirected, or harder to collect.

“Without an accounts receivable system, courts lack control over a significant source of revenue.”

For ordinary residents, this audit is about whether the local court is handling public money carefully, especially money connected to probation, indigent counsel, victim-witness fees, and bail.

“Revenues are collected by local courts and are transmitted either directly to municipalities in the courts’ jurisdiction or indirectly to the Commonwealth, through the AOTC, monthly.”

The court was mostly following the rules for the areas tested, but auditors found several management weaknesses that needed fixing or improvement.

“During our review, we identified internal control weaknesses in the Probation Office that highlight a need for improvement.”

The report recommends that court administrators keep developing the MassCourts financial system, prioritize Victim Witness fees as required, streamline cash handling, and improve accounting checks.

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

The issue was bigger than one courthouse: auditors said every district court had the same lack of an accounts receivable component, and tens of millions of dollars in fees could have been tracked through such a system.

“Since this is a weakness at every district court location, the Administrative Office of the Trial Court (AOTC) and the Administrative Office of the District Court Department (AODC) should consider implementing an accounts receivable system to track collections rather than rely on the cash-based system currently in use.”

An accounts receivable system means a formal way to track money people owe before it is paid. The report says the court had cash-tracking tools, but not a full system for controlling unpaid balances.

“Therefore, neither is a true accounts receivable system.”