COI\11\fONVVEALTH OF PENNSYL\1ANIA

Office of tl1e Auditor General

DISTRICT COURT 43-3-04

MONROE COUNTY

AUDIT REPORT

FOR THE PERIOD

JANUARY 1, 1990, TO DECEMBER 31, 1991

Barbara Hafer AUDITOR GENERAL

Barbara Hafer Audilor General

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Office of the Auditor General

H arrisburg 17120

Honorable Eileen H. McNulty Secretary Department of Revenue Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

We have audited the accompanying statement of account of District Court 43-3-04, Monroe County, Pennsylvania, for the period January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1991, pursuant to the requirements of section 401 (c) of The Fiscal Code, act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 343. This financial statement is the responsibility of the district court's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this statement based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the Government Auditing Standards - Standards for Audit of Governmental Oroanizations, Programs, Activities, and Functions, promulgated by the Comptroller General, which pertain to financial and compliance audits. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statement is free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining on a teet basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statement. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

As described in note 1, the accompanying statement of account was prepared in accordance with specific instructions of the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than generally accepted accounting principles.

In our opinion, the statement of account referred to above presents fairly, in all material respects, the operations of District Court 43-3-04 for the period January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1991, on a basis described in note 1.

DISTRICT COURT 43 - 3-04 MONROE COUNTY

STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD

JANUARY 1, 1990, TO DECEMBER 31, 1991

Collections:

Department of Transportation Title 75 fines Motor carrier Road Tax fines Littering Law fines Child Restraint fines

Department of Revenue court costs Crime Victims Compensation Board

costs Crime Commission costs Department of Public Welfare

Domestic Violence costs Department of Agriculture fines Game Commission fines Emergency Medical Services fines CAT Fund Surcharge Judicial Computer Processing Fees

Total amount due Department of Revenue

Payments and credits:

Department of Revenue - Note 2

Balance due Department of Revenue (District Court) per settled reports - Note 3

Audit adjustments

Adjusted balance due Department of Revenue (District Court) for the period January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1991

$ 84,036.72 200.00 215.00

30.00 25,614.72

6,147.37 3, 101.38

6,020.42 4,502.50 6,174.18

16,745.12 48,091.32

3,967.71

$ 204,846.44

(205,761.71)

(915.27)

(45.00)

$ (960.27) ============

Notes to financial statement are an integral part of this report.

-3-

Date

of Sum:nary

of Collections

SCHEDULE 1 DISTRICT COURT 43-3- 04

MONROE COUNTY RECONCILIATION OF SETTLED REPORTS

FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1990, TO DECEMBER 31, 1991

Balance Due - Payment Payment

Settled Reports Credited Not Credited

Dept. o! Revenue for a Prior !or Current

Report (District Court) Month Month Adjustments

1990

January $ (30.00) $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ (90.00)(a)

February 559.61 0.00 0.00 0.00

March (335.86) 0.00 0.00 0.00

April ( 58.75) 0.00 0.00 0.00

May 222.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

June (356.00) 0.00 0.00 0 . 00

July 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

August 392.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

September (7,714.37) 0.00 0.00 0.30 (b)

October 6,886.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

November ( l. 00) 0.00 0.00 0.00

December l. 00 0 .00 0.00 0.00

1991

January 13.00 0.00 0.00 0 . 00

February (ll. 50) 0.00 0.00 0.00

March 39 . 60 0.00 0.00 0.00

April (36.63) 0.00 0.00 0.00

May (103.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00

June (52.00) 0.00 0.00 0 .00

July (141.50) 0.00 0.00 0.00

August 21.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

September 221.05 0.00 0.00 (920.55)(a)

October 64.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

November 400.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

December 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Balance due Department of Revenue (District Court) per settled reports

Audit adjustments

Adjusted balance due Department o! Revenue (District Court) for the

period January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1991

(a)Amount represents a prior audit credit for the period April 1, 1988, to December 31, 1989

(b)Amount represents a prior audit payment for the period January 4, 1988, to March 31, 1988

- 5-

Adjusted

Balance Due

Dept. of Revenue

<District Court)

$ (120 . 00)

559 . 61

(335.86)

(58.75)

222.50

(356.00)

100.00

392.00

(7,714.07)

6,886.33

( l. 00)

l. 00

13.00

(11. 50)

39.60

(36.63)

(103.00)

(52.00)

(141.50)

21.50

(699.50)

64.00

400.00

15.00

(915.27)

(45 . 00)

$ (960 . 27)

I '-J I

EXHIBIT I

DISTRICT COURT 43-3- 04

MONROE COUNTY

SCHEDULE OF REPORTING ERRORS

FOR THE PERIOD

JANUARY 1, 1990, TO DECEMBER 31, 1991

Total

Income Record Report: S/L Section Balance Total

Numbe r Month Day Year Defendant Code Violated ~ Payments

REV-728 March 1990 costs due commonwealth $922.50 $(927.50)

D037101 April 1990 Realnieto, M. (S) 4703 ___Q_J1.Q. ~40.00)

To tala $922.50 $(967 . 50)

Audit

Adjustments ExPlanation

$ (5 . 00) Department of Revenue costa overs tated

(40.00) Amount represents a prior month adjustment

that should have been shown on line 20 o f

$(45.00) the REV- 728 .

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania courts, management, and others within the administration. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record.

June 12, 1992

BH/mk

-9-

For the purpose of this report, we have classified the significant internal control structure policies and procedures into the following categories:

Cash receipts Cash disbursements cash balances

Bail security and escrow liabilities Compliance

For all the internal control structure categories listed above, we obtained an understanding of the design of relevant policies and procedures and whether they have been placed in operation. Additionally, we assessed control risk for all the internal control structure categories except for compliance. Compliance with the District Justice Office Clerical Procedures Manual and applicable laws and regulations was considered when assessing control risk for the other internal control structure categories.

We noted a certain matter involving the internal control structure and its operation that we consider to be a reportable condition under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants . A reportable condition involves a matter coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control structure that, in ' our judgment, could adversely affect the district court's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the financial statements. This reportable condition noted was as follows:

Inadequate Arrest Warrant Procedures.

A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the specific internal control structure . elements does not reduce, to a relatively low level, the risk that material errors or irregularities affecting the financial statements being audited may occur and not be timely detected by employes in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.

Our consideration of the internal control structure would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control structure that might be reportable conditions and, accordingly, would not necessarily disclose all reportable conditions that are considered to be material weaknesses as defined above. However, we believe the reportable condition described above is not a material weakness.

- 11-

DISTRICT COURT 43 - 3- 04 MONROE COUNTY

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION

Finding - Inadequate Arrest Warrant Procedures

Our testing of warrant procedures at District Court 43-3 - 04 revealed several deficiencies in the internal control over the court's arrest warrant procedures. Additionally, t hese areas were not in compliance with the District Justice Office Clerical Procedures Manual. These deficiencies were as follows:

. The traffic and nontraffic dockets did not always contain updated warrant information as to the dat e of issue, the date of return, or the name of the p~rty to whom the warrant was issued .

. Warrants which could not be served were not always returned to the court within 30 days for court cases and 60 days for summary cases .

. The results of service section was not always completed or completed correctly for warrants which were returned to the court .

. Warrants were not always issued on a timely basis . An examination of 8 pending traffic citations revealed a time lapse of 23 days to 569 days from the date of violation to date of warrant issuance.

Good internal accounting controls and the District Justice Office Clerical Procedures Manual, section 16- J, require that the district court maintain proper and accurate accountability over warrants.

Auditee Response

This court will correct the procedure used in the past to issue and record arrest warrants.

Part of the problem (a major part) is the fact that this office is shorthanded and could be more efficient in many areas if an extra pair of hands were considered.

Recommendation

We recommend that the district court take steps to ensure that warrants are issued when required, attempt to increase accountability over warrants issued, and to recall warrants which have not been returned. The proper procedures to be followed are outlined in the District Justice Office Clerical Procedures Manual, section 3-F, 4-G, and 16-J.

-13-

DISTRICT COURT 43-3-04 MONROE COUNTY

SUMMARY OF CLOSING CONFERENCE

A closing conference was held June 12, 1992, at the office of District Court 43-3-04. Those in attendance were:

DISTRICT COURT

Debby York, District Justice Cindy Frailey, Assistant to Monroe County

District Court Administrator Linda Cotto, Office Staff Barbara Sica, Office Staff

DEPARTMENT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

Michael J. Hudak, Auditor

The results of the audit were presented and discussed in their entirety.

-15-

DISTRICT COURT 43 - 3 - 04

MONROE COUNTY

AUDIT REPORT

FOR THE PERIOD

JANUARY 1, 1990 , TO DECEMBER 31, 1991

Independent Auditor's Report (Continued)

In our opinion, the Statement referred to above presents, in all material respects, the operations , of the District Court as it pertains to receipts made on behalf of the Commonwealth for the period January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011, in conformity with the criteria set forth in rote l.

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards. we are required to report findings of significant deficiencies in internal control, violations of provisions of contracts or grant agreements, and abuse that are material to the Statement and any fraud and illegal acts that are more than inconsequential that come to our attention during our examination. We are also required to obtain the views of management on those matters. We performed our examination to express an opinion on whether the Statement is presented in accordance with the criteria described above and not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the internal control over reporting on the Statement or on compliance and other matters; accordingly, we express no such opinions.

A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees) in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the District Court' s ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report data reliably in accordance with the applicable criteria such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the District Court· s Statement that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the District Court's internal control. We consider the deficiency described in the finding below to be a significant deficiency in internal control over reporting on the Statement:

• Inadequate Arrest Warrant And DL-38 Procedures.

A material weakness is a significant deficiency or combination of significant deficiencies that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the Statement will not be prevented or detected by the District Court's internal control. Our consideration of the internal control over reporting on the Statement would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control that might be significant deficiencies and. accordingly, would not necessarily disclose all significant deficiencies that are also considered to be material weaknesses. However, we believe that the significant deficiency described above is not a material weakness.

2

DISTRICT COURT 43-3-04 MONROE COUNTY

NOTES TO THE STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD

JANUARY 1, 2010 TO DECEMBER 31,2011

1. Criteria

The Statement of Receipts and Disbursements provides a summary of receipts and disbursements by category. The categories and the amounts of fines, costs, fees, and surcharges assessed are based on Pennsylvania laws and regulations.

The Statement was prepared in accordance with reporting requirements prescribed by the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue. Under this method, only the -commonwealth portion of cash receipts and disbursements are presented, revenues are recognized when received, and expenditures are recognized when paid.

2. Receipts

Receipts are comprised of fines, costs, fees, and surcharges collected on behalf of the Commonwealth. These fines, costs, fees, and surcharges represent collections made on traffic, non-traffic, civil, and criminal cases filed with the District Court.

3. Disbursements

Total disbursements are comprised as follows:

District Court checks issued to:

Department of Revenue $ 837,513

4. Balance Due Commonwealth (District Court) For The Period Januarv L 2010 To December 31, 2011

This balance reflects the summary of monthly transmittal reports as settled by the Department of Revenue.

5. Magisterial District Judge Serving During Examination Period

Debby York served at District Court 43-3-04 for the period January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011.

6

DISTRICT COURT 43-3-04 MONROE COUNTY

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PERIOD

JANUARY 1. 2010 TO DECEMBER 3L 2011

Finding- Inadequate Arrest Warrant And DL-38 Procedures (Continued)

According to Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule 430, a Notice of Impending Warrant may be issued in a post­disposition summary case for any of the following reasons:

• A guilty disposition is recorded and no payment is made or a time payment schedule is not created.

• A guilty disposition is recorded and a previously deposited collateral payment, when applied, does not pay the case balance in full.

• A guilty disposition is recorded and the defendant defaults on a time payment schedule.

According to Pa.R.Crim.P. 430, a wmTant SHALL be issued in a summary case for any of the following reasons (a Notice oflmpending Warrant is not necessary for the following):

• The defendant has failed to respond to a citation or summons that was served either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested.

• The citation or summons is returned undeliverable.

• The Magisterial Dist1ict Judge has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant will not obey a summons.

Warrant Return Procedures: The Manual states that the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) recommends that those in possession of arrest warrants should be notified to return warrants that have not been served. For summary traffic and non-traffic cases, outstanding warrants should be returned to the Magisterial District Judge· s office within 60 days of issuance. Returned warrants can either be recorded in the Magisterial District Judge System (MDJS) as unserved, if the defendant is unable to be located; or they can be recalled for reissue, if the server has not exhausted all means of finding the defendant.

DL-38 Procedures: The Manual states that once a citation is given to the defendant or a summons is issued, the defendant has ten days to respond. If on the eleventh day, the defendant has not responded, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1533 requires that the defendant be notified that he/she has fifteen days from the date of notice to respond to the citation/summons before his/her license is suspended. In accordance with Section 1533 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, the defendant has 15 days to respond to the defendant's copy of the DL-3 8. If the defendant does not respond by the fifteenth day. the Magisterial District Judge's office shall notify the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation by issuing the appropriate License Suspension Request (AOPC 638B,D,E).

8