Audit Report. Judiciary. April 2004

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Audit Report. Judiciary. April 2004"

Transcription

1 Audit Report Judiciary April 2004

2 This report and any related follow-up correspondence are available to the public. Alternate formats may also be requested by contacting the Office of Legislative Audits as indicated at the bottom of the next page or through the Maryland Relay Service at Please address specific inquiries regarding this report to the Audit Manager listed on the inside back cover by telephone at (410) Electronic copies of our audit reports can be viewed or downloaded from the Internet via The Department of Legislative Services Office of the Executive Director, 90 State Circle, Annapolis, Maryland can also assist you in obtaining copies of our reports and related correspondence. The Department may be contacted by telephone at (410) or (301)

3 April 1, 2004 Senator Nathaniel J. McFadden, Co-Chair, Joint Audit Committee Delegate Van T. Mitchell, Co-Chair, Joint Audit Committee Members of Joint Audit Committee Annapolis, Maryland Ladies and Gentlemen: We have audited the Judiciary for the period beginning July 20, 2000 and ending July 31, Our audit disclosed that the Judiciary s procurement policies and procedures were not adequate. Specifically, we noted numerous instances where payments were made without formal contracts. For example, our review disclosed payments totaling approximately $2.5 million related to one Judiciary project that were made without a formal contract. In addition, the Judiciary could not substantiate that certain goods and services were obtained at the best value or that all goods and services were received prior to payment of invoices. The Judiciary was not adequately monitoring the implementation cost of the electronic land records on-line imaging system. Furthermore, the Judiciary had not accumulated and reported adequate projections of revenues and expenditures for the related Real Property Records Improvement Fund as well as project costs associated with the Uniform Court System to the General Assembly s budget committees. Our audit also disclosed internal control or record keeping deficiencies relating to cash receipts, the Court Fund, and equipment. Respectfully submitted, Bruce A. Myers, CPA Legislative Auditor

4 2

5 Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Background Information 7 Agency Responsibilities 7 Current Status of Findings From Preceding Audit Report 7 Findings and Recommendations 9 Procurements * Finding 1 Appropriate Procurement Practices Were Not Always Used 9 Finding 2 Database Software May Not Have Been Obtained in the Most 10 Cost Effective Manner and Price Negotiations Were Not Documented Real Property Records Improvement Fund * Finding 3 The Judiciary Was Not Adequately Administering the 11 Implementation of the Electronic Land Records System Uniform Court System * Finding 4 Total System Costs Had Not Been Determined and Related 13 Project Information Had Not Been Submitted to the General Assembly District Courts * Finding 5 Adequate Internal Control Was Not Established Over 13 Collections Finding 6 The Court Fund Had Not Been Reconciled in a Timely Manner 15 at One District Court Investigation of Possible Criminal or Unethical Activity Finding 7 (Policy Issue) A Policy Regarding the Investigation of Possible 16 Criminal or Unethical Activity Had Not Been Established * Denotes item repeated in full or part from preceding audit report. 3

6 Equipment * Finding 8 Adequate Control and Accountability Was Not Maintained 16 Over Equipment Audit Scope, Objectives, and Methodology 19 Agency Response Appendix * Denotes item repeated in full or part from preceding audit report. 4

7 Executive Summary Legislative Audit Report on the Judiciary April 2004 Numerous disbursements were made for goods and services without formal contracts and the Judiciary did not always verify that billed goods and services were received prior to payment of invoices. The Judiciary should ensure that formal contracts are executed for goods and services purchased and verify that all billed goods and services are received before payments are made. The Judiciary did not ensure that database software was procured in the most cost effective manner and did not maintain documentation supporting its price negotiation efforts for the software purchase. Future software purchases should be made in the most cost effective manner and documentation supporting price negotiations should be maintained. The reasonableness of cost proposals totaling approximately $4.1 million submitted by a contractor for the implementation of the electronic land records on-line imaging system were not verified. The Judiciary should ensure that future goods and services relating to system implementation are obtained at competitive prices. The Judiciary had not provided the General Assembly with adequate revenue and expenditure projections relating to the Real Property Records Improvement Fund or project cost information relating to the Uniform Court System. The Judiciary should submit adequate Fund revenue and expenditure projections and System project cost information to the General Assembly s budget committees. Adequate controls had not been established to ensure that all collections received by the District Court money room and two other District Court locations reviewed were deposited. Additionally, six employees at two District Court locations reviewed had access to both traffic citation collections and the related accounts receivable records. 5

8 Independent verifications should be performed and documented to ensure that all recorded collections are deposited. In addition, the Judiciary should establish procedures to ensure that employees with access to traffic citation collections do not have access to the related accounts receivable records. The Court Fund at one District Court had not been reconciled for over four years and certain payments made from the Fund were not adequately investigated. The Judiciary should independently reconcile the Court Fund on a periodic basis and adequately investigate any differences. The Judiciary lacked a comprehensive policy regarding the investigation of possible criminal or unethical activity by its employees or entities doing business with the Judiciary. The Judiciary should establish a policy addressing the investigation of possible criminal or unethical conduct. Numerous control and accountability deficiencies were noted relating to the Judiciary s equipment. The Judiciary should ensure that equipment records are accurately maintained, and that physical inventories of equipment are conducted and reconciled to the related detail records. The Judiciary should also establish written policies and procedures regarding equipment control and record keeping requirements. 6

9 Agency Responsibilities Background Information The Judiciary is established by the State Constitution as a separate branch of government responsible for the administration of justice in Maryland. The Judiciary is composed of the courts and various other agencies that support the administrative and regulatory functions of the Judicial Branch of government. The courts include the Court of Appeals, Court of Special Appeals, Circuit Courts and District Court. The Circuit Courts are located in each of the State s 24 local subdivisions. The District Court is divided into 12 geographic districts that contain 34 local courts. Other agencies included in the Judiciary are the Maryland Judicial Conference, the Administrative Office of the Courts, the State Law Library, and related agencies such as the State Reporter, Commission on Judicial Disabilities, and the State Board of Law Examiners. Current Status of Findings From Preceding Audit Report Our audit included a review to determine the current status of the seven fiscal/compliance findings and the two performance audit findings contained in our preceding audit report on the Judiciary dated April 19, We determined that the Judiciary satisfactorily addressed two of the fiscal/compliance findings and the two performance audit findings. The remaining five fiscal/compliance findings are repeated in this report. 7

10 8

11 Findings and Recommendations Procurements Finding 1 The Judiciary did not always execute formal contracts for services, obtain competitive bids, or verify the propriety of contractor charges. Analysis The Judiciary did not always use appropriate procurement practices when procuring goods and services or verify that billed goods and services were received before payments were made. Specifically, our audit disclosed the following deficiencies: Our review of 15 payments totaling $4.7 million disclosed eight payments totaling approximately $2.5 million for services (such as user and technical support fees) relating to the electronic land records on-line imaging system (ELROI) that were made without a formal contract. Additionally, the Judiciary did not adequately verify the charges listed on certain invoices relating to ELROI totaling approximately $2.3 million. During fiscal years 2000 through 2003, the Judiciary paid State Archives at least $3.6 million to develop and install a land plats system at the circuit courts without a formal contract. In addition, for two payments totaling approximately $500,000, the Judiciary could not provide us with documentation substantiating that goods and services were received. The Judiciary made 13 payments totaling approximately $260,000 to a contractor for system development services relating to the Uniform Court System without a formal contract. Our test of 20 contractual service payments totaling $5.3 million disclosed that the Judiciary could not provide us with signed contracts supporting payments to five vendors totaling approximately $820,000. Additionally, the Judiciary did not obtain competitive bids for three other service contracts totaling approximately $480,000, and the written sole source justification supporting one purchase of $146,500 was not approved by Judiciary management personnel. Furthermore, during our test of other expenditures totaling $2.2 million, we noted three expenditures totaling approximately $250,000 that were made without ensuring that all billed goods or services were received. 9

12 As a result of these deficiencies, there is a lack of assurance that the best possible prices were obtained for goods and services and that all billed goods and services were received. During fiscal year 2003, the Judiciary processed disbursement transmittals totaling approximately $64 million. Similar procurement-related comments have been included in our four preceding audit reports. The Judiciary is not required to comply with State Procurement Regulations. However, sound business practices dictate that signed written contracts be executed for all services procured, and that, prior to payment, verifications be performed to ensure that all billed goods and services are received. The Judiciary s Procurement Policy requires that all procurements over $25,000 be competitively bid, and that the reasons for sole source procurements be documented and approved by Judiciary management personnel. Recommendation 1 We again recommend that the Judiciary ensure that formal written contracts are executed for goods and services purchased. We also again recommend that the Judiciary ensure that it uses competitive procurement practices to the greatest extent possible and verifies that all billed goods and services are received prior to making payments. If sole source procurement is used, we also recommend that the written justification for the use of this procurement method be approved by appropriate management personnel. Finding 2 The Judiciary did not ensure that the purchase of database software was made in the most cost effective manner, and did not maintain documentation supporting its price negotiation efforts for the software purchased. Analysis The Judiciary did not determine the most cost effective option for the purchase of database software for which it had spent approximately $2.4 million for related licenses and maintenance agreements as of December We were advised by Judiciary management personnel that the software was purchased primarily to facilitate the interface of its database with that of another State agency that had previously purchased the same type of software. However, a private consultant hired to research software options for the Judiciary s database determined that another product that had similar features would cost approximately $1,050,000 less over a five-year period. 10

13 Furthermore, the Judiciary did not determine the cost effectiveness of purchasing this or another less costly software product and developing an application to interface with the other State agency s database. In addition, the Judiciary did not maintain documentation supporting the price negotiation process for the database software purchases; consequently, the extent of this negotiation process could not be determined. Recommendation 2 We recommend that the Judiciary make future software purchases in the most cost effective manner. Additionally, we recommend that the Judiciary maintain documentation supporting any price negotiations. Real Property Records Improvement Fund Background In 1991, State law established the Real Property Records Improvement Fund as a special fund to maintain and modernize equipment at the various Clerk of Circuit Court land records offices. The Fund s revenue is primarily derived from a surcharge of $20 collected by the Circuit Courts for recording land record documents, such as mortgages and leases. The Fund s main initiative is the electronic land records on-line imaging system (ELROI), which provides the public with electronic access to land record documents. The Judiciary originally estimated that the cost of installing ELROI in the 24 Circuit Courts would be $18 million. However, as of June 30, 2003, ELROI had only been installed in 13 Circuit Courts at a total cost of approximately $27 million for the installation, maintenance, and upgrades to the system. We were advised that the Judiciary projects that installation for the remaining 11 counties will be completed by June 2006 at an additional cost of approximately $11.1 million. In addition, required system upgrades and maintenance costs are projected to average approximately $8 million annually. Finding 3 The Judiciary was not adequately administering the implementation of the ELROI. Analysis The Judiciary was not adequately administering the implementation of the ELROI. Specifically, our review disclosed the following conditions: 11

14 The Judiciary did not verify the reasonableness of cost proposals submitted by the contractor before the related services were performed. For example, our review of 12 ELROI expenditures totaling approximately $4.1 million during fiscal year 2003 disclosed that for all 12 of the expenditures, the Judiciary did not review the statements of work to determine if the cost proposals were reasonable. While we were advised that equipment purchases related to the ELROI project were competitively bid, there is a lack of assurance that services were provided at competitive prices. Similar conditions were noted in our preceding audit and in the Judiciary s Internal Audit Department s report on the Judicial Information Systems dated July 11, In this regard, the Internal Audit Department s report noted internal contractor memorandums that indicated that the contractor anticipated earning a 15 percent profit on the installation of ELROI in one county; however, the documents indicated that the contractor actually realized a profit of 35 percent (or approximately $240,000) on this installation. The Judiciary s projections of annual Fund revenues and expenditures reported to the General Assembly s budget committees contained deficiencies or were not adequately supported. For example, revenue projections reported to the committees for fiscal year 2004 failed to include photocopy fees. Under State law, fees collected from photocopies made on equipment purchased through the Fund are deposited to the Fund. During fiscal year 2003, these photocopy fees totaled approximately $2.4 million. Accurate projections of Fund revenues and expenditures are significant since the Fund is currently scheduled to expire in June Consequently, if the Fund does not receive sufficient revenue from existing sources, general funds may be needed to complete the Fund s initiatives and support ongoing system maintenance and upgrades. The Judiciary projected that the Fund s annual revenues and expenditures will be approximately $20.3 million from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year Recommendation 3 We again recommend that the Judiciary ensure that future goods and services related to ELROI are obtained at competitive prices. We also recommend that the Judiciary ensure that revenue and expenditure projections submitted to the General Assembly s budget committees, as related to the Real Property Records Improvement Fund, include all revenue sources and are adequately supported. 12

15 Uniform Court System Finding 4 The Judiciary had not determined the total costs for the Uniform Court System, and related project information had not been periodically submitted to the General Assembly s budget committees. Analysis The Judiciary was not accumulating or reporting all actual costs associated with the implementation of the Uniform Court System (UCS). As a result, the total costs for the UCS, which at one time were projected to be approximately $15 million, have not been determined. In addition, the Judiciary had not submitted UCS project information to the General Assembly s budget committees since October 2000 at which time the information provided appeared to be incorrect. Similar conditions were commented upon in our two preceding audit reports. The Judiciary hired a vendor in fiscal year 1995 to implement the UCS, which is an automated Circuit Court record keeping system for criminal, civil, and juvenile court cases. As of August 2003, certain modules of the UCS were installed in all Circuit Courts. However, additional installation and maintenance costs will be incurred in the future. Expenditures related to this project totaled approximately $260,000 during fiscal year Recommendation 4 We again recommend that the Judiciary accumulate all costs associated with the UCS project, including identifying and recording any significant unrecorded project costs. We also again recommend that the Judiciary submit complete and accurate UCS project information to the budget committees. District Courts Finding 5 The Judiciary had not established adequate controls over District Court collections. Analysis Adequate controls were not established over District Court collections: Independent verifications were not performed to ensure that the collections received by the District Court money room were subsequently deposited. 13

16 Rather, the individuals who performed the verifications had access to the deposit before it was taken to the bank. Consequently, collections could be misappropriated without detection. During fiscal year 2003, the District Court money room collected fines and costs totaling approximately $22.4 million. The comparison of cash receipts recorded in Maryland Automated Traffic System (MATS) to the Judiciary s financial accounting system was not documented. Specifically, District Court employees entered collections received in MATS and forwarded the certificates of deposit to the Judiciary s Finance Office for entry of the deposit information in the financial accounting system. Although we were advised that a supervisor compared the certificates of deposit to deposit information entered in the system, this comparison was not documented. Consequently, there was a lack of assurance that all District Court collections deposited were recorded in the system. During fiscal year 2003, District Court collected fines and costs totaling approximately $71.7 million. Supervisory personnel at the two District Court locations we reviewed advised us that verifications were performed to ensure that all recorded District Court and Court Fund collections were deposited. However, such verifications were not documented for certain types of receipts totaling $13 million during fiscal year Additionally, six employees at these two locations had access to traffic citation collections and to the related accounts receivable records in MATS. This condition has been commented upon in our four preceding audit reports. As a result of these conditions, collections could be misappropriated without detection. Recommendation 5 We recommend that the individuals performing the deposit verifications be denied access to cash receipts. We also recommend that the Judiciary document the comparison of collections recorded in MATS to deposit information recorded in the Judiciary s financial accounting system. We further recommend that verifications to ensure that all recorded collections are deposited are documented and retained for future reference. Finally, we again recommend that employees with access to traffic citation collections not have the capability to modify accounts receivable information in MATS. 14

17 Finding 6 The Court Fund at one District Court had not been reconciled in a timely manner (for over four years) and certain transactions had not been adequately investigated. Analysis The Court Fund balance recorded on the bank statements had not been reconciled to the corresponding balance in the accounting records in a timely manner during the period from March 1999 to June 2003 at one District Court. Furthermore, a July 2003 reconciliation of the Fund was not independent since it was performed by an employee authorized to sign checks from the Fund. During fiscal year 2003, Court Fund collections totaled approximately $1.9 million and, as of July 31, 2003, the book balance of the Court Fund totaled approximately $436,000. By not performing account reconciliations and adequately investigating differences noted, erroneous, questionable or unauthorized transactions could go undetected. In this regard, the Judiciary did not adequately investigate certain questionable payments made from the Fund and used State general funds to cover the resulting shortage totaling approximately $8,000. For example, for one payment the Fund s records reflected a deposit and subsequent disbursement for $5,000, but the Fund s bank statements did not reflect the deposit. Management personnel discovered the shortages in May 2003 and questioned the fund custodian. However, the Judiciary did not adequately investigate the transactions, including substantiating the disposition of the $5,000. We subsequently determined that the $5,000 was deposited to a General Fund bank account in error. Recommendation 6 We recommend that the Judiciary reconcile its Court Fund accounts monthly and that the reconciliations be performed by an employee independent of the check processing and deposit functions. We also recommend that any differences be adequately investigated to detect erroneous, questionable or unauthorized transactions and to determine their proper disposition. 15

18 Investigation of Possible Criminal or Unethical Activity Finding 7 (Policy Issue) The Judiciary had not established a comprehensive policy regarding the investigation of possible criminal or unethical activity. Analysis The Judiciary had not established a comprehensive policy specifying the required reporting of possible criminal or unethical activity by its employees or entities doing business with the Judiciary, the investigation of such activity, and the circumstances under which such activity should be referred to other units of State government (such as the Attorney General s Criminal Investigation Division) for further investigation. Consequently, possible criminal or unethical activity may not be adequately reported, investigated and resolved. Policies concerning the investigation of possible criminal or unethical activity have been established for executive branch agencies via Executive Orders issued by the current and previous Governors. Recommendation 7 We recommend that the Judiciary establish a comprehensive policy addressing the investigation of possible criminal or unethical activity which includes, at a minimum, requirements for reporting and investigating such activity, and referring such activity (for example, to the Attorney General s Criminal Investigation Division) for further investigation. Equipment Finding 8 The Judiciary did not maintain adequate controls and accountability over its equipment. Analysis The Judiciary lacked proper controls and accountability over its equipment. According to the Judiciary s records, as of June 30, 2003, the book value of its equipment totaled approximately $70.5 million. Our review disclosed the following conditions: The equipment control accounts maintained were inadequate as they were posted from summaries of postings to the related detail records rather than from an independent source. 16

19 Numerous equipment items totaling approximately $2.8 million purchased between December 1999 and June 2003 had not been recorded in the detail records as of July Additionally, computer-related equipment totaling approximately $5.9 million had been recorded twice in the Judiciary s detail records. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) conducted a physical inventory primarily from June 2001 to April However, as of July 2003, the physical inventory results had not been reconciled with the related detail records for 18 of the AOC s 58 units. These 18 units had equipment valued at approximately $28 million. For the remaining 40 units, the AOC identified and investigated missing equipment items totaling approximately $1.3 million. However, as of July 2003, these missing equipment items were still recorded in the detail records. Additionally, a physical inventory of District Court sensitive equipment items had not been conducted since December Comprehensive written policies and procedures (similar to those established by the District Court) had not been established by the AOC to address control and record keeping requirements, increasing the potential for weaknesses such as those noted above. The Judiciary is exempt from the provisions of the Department of General Services Inventory Control Manual. Nevertheless, an equipment control account should be maintained independent of the related detail records to provide adequate internal control. For the same reason, accurate detail records should be maintained, identification tags should be affixed to the equipment items, and physical inventories should be taken and reconciled to the related detail records, and any differences promptly investigated and resolved. Additionally, comprehensive procedures should be documented to promote the consistent implementation of these policies. Similar control and accountability requirements are contained in the District Courts Inventory Asset Manual. The failure to properly maintain equipment control accounts was commented upon in our three preceding audit reports, and inadequacies in the physical inventory process have been commented upon in the last five audit reports on the Judiciary dating back to Recommendation 8 We again recommend that the Judiciary maintain equipment control accounts independent of the related detail records and that the control account balances be periodically reconciled with the aggregate of the related 17

20 detail records. Additionally, we recommend that all equipment acquisitions be accurately recorded in the detail records. Furthermore, we again recommend that the Judiciary conduct annual physical inventories of sensitive equipment, and reconcile the results of all physical inventories with the detail records in a timely manner. Finally, we recommend that the AOC establish comprehensive written policies and procedures regarding the control and record keeping requirements for its equipment. 18

21 Audit Scope, Objectives, and Methodology We audited the Judiciary for the period beginning July 20, 2000 and ending July 31, The audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As prescribed by the State Government Article, Section of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the objectives of this audit were to examine the Judiciary s financial transactions, records and internal control, and to evaluate its compliance with applicable State laws, rules, and regulations. We also determined the status of the findings contained in our preceding audit report. In planning and conducting our audit, we focused on the major financial related areas of operations based on assessments of materiality and risk. Our audit procedures included inquiries of appropriate personnel, inspection of documents and records, and observation of the Judiciary s operations. We also tested transactions and performed other auditing procedures that we considered necessary to achieve our objectives. Data provided in this report for background or informational purposes were deemed reasonable, but were not independently verified. The Judiciary provides certain support services (for example, payroll, processing of invoices, maintenance of budgetary accounting records) on a centralized basis for the Offices of the Clerks of the Circuit Courts. These support services were included in the scope of this audit. We audit the remaining fiscal activities of the Clerks Offices on an individual basis, and separate audit reports are issued. Our audit scope did not include the operations of the Judicial Information Systems, which is audited separately by us. We also did not audit the Judiciary s Federal financial assistance programs for compliance with Federal laws and regulations because the State of Maryland engages an independent accounting firm to annually audit such programs administered by State agencies. Our audit scope was limited with respect to the Judiciary s cash transactions because the Office of the State Treasurer was unable to reconcile the State s main bank accounts during the audit period. Due to this condition, we were unable to determine, with reasonable assurance, that all Judiciary cash transactions were accounted for and properly recorded on the related State accounting records as well as the bank s records. 19

22 The Judiciary s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control. Internal control is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance that objectives pertaining to the reliability of financial records, effectiveness and efficiency of operations including safeguarding of assets, and compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations are achieved. Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or fraud may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any evaluation of internal control to future periods are subject to the risk that conditions may change or compliance with policies and procedures may deteriorate. Our reports are designed to assist the Maryland General Assembly in exercising its legislative oversight function and to provide constructive recommendations for improving State operations. As a result, our reports generally do not address activities we reviewed that are functioning properly. This report includes conditions that we consider to be significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control that could adversely affect the Judiciary s ability to maintain reliable financial records, operate effectively and efficiently, and/or comply with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Our report also includes conditions regarding significant instances of noncompliance with applicable laws, rules, or regulations. The Judiciary s response to our findings and recommendations is included as an appendix to this report. As prescribed in the State Government Article, Section of the Annotated Code of Maryland, we will advise the Judiciary regarding the results of our review of its response. 20

23

24 to field locations. In 2003, the Administrative Office of the Courts transferred warehouse responsibility for IT equipment related to this and other circuit court projects to its Procurement Department. Since that time, all IT equipment must be shipped to a central receiving location in Annapolis to ensure proper verification of delivery before these items are distributed to field locations. While work on the land plat system has been completed by the Maryland State Archives, maintenance of that system continues by the Archives. We will move to amend one of our two existing memoranda of understanding with the Archives to include project maintenance. The problem of verification with respect to this project may have resulted from goods procured by the Archives and deployed directly to field locations. We will develop a process of verification in collaboration with the Archives with respect to this project. As to payments related to the UCS project without a formal contract, these payments represent work performed by the original UCS contractor for on-going database conversion support while contractual negotiations were being conducted. The Judiciary has entered into a support contract with AMA JUSTECH for Fiscal Year 2004 for this purpose. With respect to problems associated with several contractual services payments associated with the lack of competitive bidding or formal contracts, the Judiciary energetically is engaged in ensuring all such services are bid and result in a formal contractual relationship. As to the problem described in the analysis with a sole source justification, the Judiciary s procurement policy requires a written justification and determination by management for a sole source procurement. In conclusion, the Judiciary has accepted the Legislative Auditor s recommendation as evidenced by our adoption of a comprehensive procurement policy and the establishment of procedures to ensure its implementation and enforcement. Finding #2 The Judiciary considered a number of factors before determining that the ORACLE Database Management System met its near- and long-term Information Technology goals. Over an eighteen (18) month period, the Judiciary engaged in numerous internal meetings to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the two (2) database options that met the computing requirements of the Judiciary. The two database management systems reviewed were ORACLE (Oracle Corporation) and DB2 (IBM Corporation). Both database management systems are good products and have their respective strengths and weaknesses. The Judiciary used several criteria in its decisionmaking process. First: the functionality and long-term commitment of the company to the product-line. Of significant importance was the fact that the ORACLE Corporation is a database management system company and ORACLE is its primary product. Millions of dollars of

25 research are invested in improving their product and the research should result in consistent upgrades to the product s functionality. IBM Corporation, on the other hand, is a hardware company first and foremost, and has several database management systems that it supports. Logically, we would not expect the same level of research to go into the development of improved DB2 functionality. Second: the direction State agencies were moving with their automation efforts. Specifically, the State of Maryland was moving in the direction of ORACLE and in particular the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) had purchased ORACLE. This is important in that DPSCS is one of the State agencies that requires a critically important IT interface with Judiciary information systems. Third: the Judiciary s long-term IT goals included the migration of legacy mainframe systems to a client-server/distributed environment. Industry white papers indicated that ORACLE performed better in the client/server environment than DB2. The decision to purchase ORACLE as a near- and long-term strategy for the Maryland Judiciary was based upon solid reasons rooted in the Judiciary s long-term IT goals of e-filing, video-conferencing, and web-enabled application development. The decision was well thought out and well researched, with concurrence from the Judiciary s Information Technology Oversight Committee. With respect to the pricing of the ORACLE product, the software was obtained on an existing DBM statewide contract (DBM-BPO #050B280059) and as such, the Judiciary assumed it received a highly competitive price negotiated by the State. Finding #3 As we replied in Finding 1, over the last 18 months, the Judiciary has effectively unbundled the goods and services associated with the ELROI project. As a result of the Judiciary s Internal Auditor finding related to ELROI site installation profit margins, the Judiciary required that the Director of the Judicial Information Systems Department review the proposed cost for the installation in each of the ten remaining jurisdictions and provide written assurance that the cost was fair and reasonable before an agreement was executed. As to the reporting of total revenues including copy fees to legislative budget committees, each year the Judiciary submits an annual report of such revenues including copy fees to the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee and the House Appropriations Committee, as well as to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. The revenue information referred to in the present analysis was a projection related specifically to a proposed increase to the recordation surcharge and the amount of anticipated revenues from the surcharge based upon prospective 2003 legislation increasing the surcharge to $20.

26 Finding #4 The Judiciary has continued to provide cost projections for the UCS in the Circuit Court Automation Budget (Z250), thus providing the General Assembly with on-going project costs on an annual basis. As reported, the approximate cost of the development and implementation of UCS through February 1998 was $11,700,000. Additional expenditures during FY 1999 totaled $54,000, with expenditures during FY 2000 of $1,216,000. Thus, the expenditure for UCS development and implementation through FY 2000 was approximately $12,970,000. The development phase of the UCS project was completed in FY Consequently, UCS is supported as part of the Judicial Information Systems Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Budget. Costs incurred during the continuing implementation of UCS will be in the areas of staff support (O&M) and database conversion. Database conversion costs in FY 2001, FY 2002 and FY 2003 totaled approximately $1,100,000. The UCS is currently installed (select modules) in all the counties with the exception of Prince George s and Montgomery Counties, which operate county-based case management systems. Baltimore County and Baltimore City will be the next jurisdictions to receive the remaining UCS modules. Implementation of UCS in Baltimore County is projected to cost $450,000. Baltimore City implementation costs are estimated at $650,000. The total projected implementation cost of UCS is approximately $15.1 million. Budget constraints have resulted in a temporary delay in the implementation of a Capital Planning Process/Methodology to more closely monitor IT project costs. This methodology will be implemented as soon as budgetarily feasible. Finding #5 The auditors comments are only partially correct because we believe there are partially compensating controls. The supervisor only had access to the funds after they were put in tamper proof, sealed, pre-numbered bank bags and the numbers logged into the armor car service book. The armor car company verifies the bag numbers before signing the logs when they pick up the deposit. However, to further strengthen the controls in this area, we have procured a drop safe with two keys required to open it. One of these keys has been given only to the armor car carrier thereby eliminating the supervisor s access to the tamper proof, sealed, pre-numbered bank bags. The Judiciary Finance Department concurs with the recommendation and agrees to document the comparison of the certificates of deposit to the Judiciary s financial accounting system (AS400). It should be noted, however, that employees who receive funds do not enter collections into the MATS records. A cash register program transfers

27 collection data electronically to the automated court records. The comparison of the cash register collections to MATS records is performed at the field locations. There may be lack of documentation, but the deposits were verified and therefore there is not lack of assurance that the funds were deposited. We agree to document this verification by initialing the validated deposit ticket. As it relates to the six employees that had access to collections and accounts receivable records in MATS, four of the employees referred to only had access to traffic citation collections by virtue of the fact they operated the electric letter opener that opened all mail. They no longer perform that duty. The fifth employee referred to is a Support Services Supervisor who on rare occasions was a last resort emergency cashier; in calendar year 2003 she processed only $1,256. The District Court was operating under the impression that she had no update capabilities to the accounts receivable of the traffic system. As a result of follow up to this finding, we discovered she actually did have update capabilities, which have been removed. In the case of the remaining employee, she had access by virtue of the fact she had access to the safe where the deposits were stored overnight. To correct this situation a drop safe is in the process of being procured with two keys required to open it. One of these keys will not be given to this employee. Finding #6 The lack of timely reconciliation in the District noted by the auditors, was discovered by District Court Management. Upon discovery, management took immediate action to rectify the situation. The July 2003 reconciliation was performed by a person authorized to sign checks, the District s top manager (Administrative Clerk), due to an unusual situation. The accounting supervisor was on a very long extended leave and all other employees capable of reconciling the account generate check requests. The Administrative Clerk performed the reconciliation recognizing that the normal procedure prohibits employees who sign checks from performing the reconciliation, but also recognizing it was better to perform the reconciliation than leaving it undone. Additionally, the Judiciary will continue to investigate and resolve, to the extent possible, all discrepancies found during future reconciliations. Finding #7 The Judiciary does not concur with the Legislative Auditor that the Judiciary is in need of a formal policy concerning the investigation of possible criminal or unethical behavior. Specifically, with respect to judges, the Commission on Judicial Disabilities is a well-established body, which long has been empowered to investigate complaints relating to possible misconduct by judges. As to the Judiciary staff, there are two principal means of addressing suspected criminal or unethical misconduct. First, under existing human resources policies, whenever such conduct is suspected of an employee, the alleged activity is investigated

28 thoroughly with prompt and effective remedial action taken whenever warranted. Second, there is in the Judiciary an Office of Internal Audit under the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, which is empowered to conduct financial and performance audits, both of which may uncover illegal or unethical conduct. It also is empowered to undertake other probative actions at the direction of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals. In all cases where appropriate, law enforcement is called upon to investigate alleged criminal activity. Finding #8 Some of the 2003 cited items not recorded in the detail records were purchased at the end of the fiscal year and had not yet been received at the time the records were examined. These items were properly recorded upon receipt. A significant number of these items were IT-related equipment. As we replied in Finding 1, such equipment often was shipped to various field locations directly making proper documentation problematic. As a result, the Administrative Office of the Courts established a centralized receiving location for all such equipment to ensure proper recording in the detail records. As to the duplication of recording computer-related equipment in the detail records, we will make the necessary correction as of June 30, The equipment is residing in an inactive portion of the database. The reason for the change not occurring until June 30 is because we do not want the beginning balance as reported to the Department of General Services to be affected until the start of a new fiscal year. As to ensuring the affixing of identification tags related to those goods shipped directly to field locations, protocol has been established for this purpose involving a letter and a follow-up telephone call to these locations. A record of these follow-up attempts will be maintained. In those cases where confirmation remains problematic, the matter will be reported to the Director of the Procurement Department for further action, and if deemed appropriate, transmitted to the State Court Administrator for action. With respect to unlocated items, all such items identified from each of the jurisdictions cited will be moved to the unlocated section of the database (U ) and a recommendation will be made requesting that the items be removed from the detail records. With respect to the equipment control account, the Fixed Assets Manager has been working with the Finance Department and has established a procedure that allows the Fixed Assets Manager to run a query in the AS400 for completed invoices. After the report is generated, the Fixed Assets Manager will request a copy of the completed invoice from Finance. When the invoice is received, staff from the Inventory Section will verify the equipment purchase and cost from the invoice with the purchase order and complete the proper paperwork to issue a bar code for the equipment listed on the completed purchase order.

29

30 AUDIT TEAM Mark A. Ermer, CPA Audit Manager Catherine M. Easter Laura R. Morgan, CPA Jeffrey C. Womack, CPA Senior Auditors Henriette A. Browne Abdel ghani Elbouamri Benjamin P. Gill Timothy E. Hobbs Staff Auditors

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Anne Arundel County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Anne Arundel County, Maryland September 2007 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and

More information

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Montgomery County, Maryland

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Montgomery County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Montgomery County, Maryland January 2003 This report and any related follow-up correspondence are available to the public. Alternate formats may also be

More information

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Carroll County, Maryland

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Carroll County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Carroll County, Maryland May 2008 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any related

More information

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Prince George s County, Maryland

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Prince George s County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Prince George s County, Maryland May 2005 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any

More information

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Baltimore City, Maryland

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Baltimore City, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Baltimore City, Maryland June 2011 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any related

More information

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Baltimore County, Maryland

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Baltimore County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Baltimore County, Maryland May 2008 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any related

More information

Office of the Register of Wills Calvert County, Maryland

Office of the Register of Wills Calvert County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Register of Wills Calvert County, Maryland May 2003 This report and any related follow-up correspondence are available to the public. Alternate formats may also be requested

More information

Office of Administrative Hearings

Office of Administrative Hearings Audit Report Office of Administrative Hearings March 2006 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any related follow-up correspondence

More information

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Charles County, Maryland

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Charles County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Charles County, Maryland December 2009 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any related

More information

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Dorchester County, Maryland

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Dorchester County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Dorchester County, Maryland July 2006 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any related

More information

Office of the Register of Wills Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Office of the Register of Wills Anne Arundel County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Register of Wills Anne Arundel County, Maryland August 2007 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any related

More information

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Garrett County, Maryland

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Garrett County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Garrett County, Maryland June 2010 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any related

More information

Property Tax Assessment Appeals Boards

Property Tax Assessment Appeals Boards Audit Report Property Tax Assessment Appeals Boards April 2007 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any related follow-up correspondence

More information

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Cecil County, Maryland

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Cecil County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Cecil County, Maryland July 2010 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any related

More information

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Worcester County, Maryland

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Worcester County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Worcester County, Maryland February 2007 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any

More information

Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Central Region Finance Office

Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Central Region Finance Office Audit Report Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Central Region Finance Office August 2012 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This

More information

Office of the Register of Wills Frederick County, Maryland

Office of the Register of Wills Frederick County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Register of Wills Frederick County, Maryland October 2010 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any related

More information

Office of the Register of Wills Montgomery County, Maryland

Office of the Register of Wills Montgomery County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Register of Wills Montgomery County, Maryland September 2012 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any related

More information

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Baltimore County, Maryland

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Baltimore County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Baltimore County, Maryland October 2011 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any related

More information

Office of the Public Defender

Office of the Public Defender Audit Report Office of the Public Defender December 2007 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any related follow-up correspondence are

More information

University System of Maryland University of Maryland, College Park

University System of Maryland University of Maryland, College Park Audit Report University System of Maryland University of Maryland, College Park March 2009 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY This report and any

More information

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Laboratories Administration

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Laboratories Administration Audit Report Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Laboratories Administration March 2016 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY For further information

More information

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Talbot County, Maryland

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Talbot County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Talbot County, Maryland July 2018 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY For further information concerning

More information

Office of the Register of Wills Carroll County, Maryland

Office of the Register of Wills Carroll County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Register of Wills Carroll County, Maryland May 2018 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY For further information concerning

More information

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Calvert County, Maryland

Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Calvert County, Maryland Audit Report Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court Calvert County, Maryland July 2018 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY For further information concerning

More information

Maryland Department of Planning

Maryland Department of Planning Audit Report Maryland Department of Planning April 2017 OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY For further information concerning this report contact:

More information

LA14-20 STATE OF NEVADA. Performance Audit. Judicial Branch of Government Supreme Court of Nevada. Legislative Auditor Carson City, Nevada

LA14-20 STATE OF NEVADA. Performance Audit. Judicial Branch of Government Supreme Court of Nevada. Legislative Auditor Carson City, Nevada LA14-20 STATE OF NEVADA Performance Audit Judicial Branch of Government Supreme Court of Nevada 2014 Legislative Auditor Carson City, Nevada Audit Highlights Highlights of performance audit report on the

More information

October 31, Dear Senator Currie and Delegate Conway:

October 31, Dear Senator Currie and Delegate Conway: State of Maryland Department of Human Resources Maryland s Human Services Agency Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. Governor October 31, 2006 The Honorable Ulysses Currie Chair, Senate Budget and Taxation Committee

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STANLY COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STANLY COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STANLY COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT ALBEMARLE, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT JUNE 2018 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office of

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT BREVARD, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT JUNE 2018 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office

More information

REPORT ON AUDIT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2007

REPORT ON AUDIT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2007 OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT ON AUDIT FOR THE YEAR ENDED

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA SWAIN COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT BRYSON CITY, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT OCTOBER 2015 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA JACKSON COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT SYLVA, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT JUNE 2018 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office of the

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT FISCAL CONTROL AUDIT WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR LESLIE W. MERRITT, JR., CPA, CFP STATE AUDITOR BEAUFORT COUNTY

More information

Internal Controls and Compliance Audit. July 2012 through March 2015

Internal Controls and Compliance Audit. July 2012 through March 2015 This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp O L A OFFICE OF THE

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA HERTFORD COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT FISCAL CONTROL AUDIT WINTON, NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE AUDITOR HERTFORD COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR

More information

Follow-Up of the Audit of the Orange County Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts Financial Controls and Revenue Collection Procedures

Follow-Up of the Audit of the Orange County Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts Financial Controls and Revenue Collection Procedures Follow-Up of the Audit of the Orange County Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts Financial Controls and Revenue Collection Procedures Report by the Office of County Comptroller Martha O. Haynie, CPA

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA ANSON COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA ANSON COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA ANSON COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT WADESBORO, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT JULY 2018 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office of

More information

State Highway Administration

State Highway Administration Special Review State Highway Administration Procurement Process for Consulting Contracts May Have Been Circumvented Contract of $750,000 Was Awarded in Potential Violation of State Ethics Laws October

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA MITCHELL COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT FISCAL CONTROL AUDIT BAKERSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR LESLIE W. MERRITT, JR., CPA, CFP STATE AUDITOR MITCHELL COUNTY

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA SURRY COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT FISCAL CONTROL AUDIT DOBSON, NORTH CAROLINA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2006, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2006 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR LESLIE W. MERRITT,

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 147 Article 5A 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 147 Article 5A 1 Article 5A. Auditor. 147-64.1. Salary of State Auditor. (a) The salary of the State Auditor shall be set by the General Assembly in the Current Operations Appropriations Act. (b) In addition to the salary

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA FORSYTH COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT SEPTEMBER 2014 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE AUDITOR STATE OF

More information

D. Statement on Internal Control Structure E. Management Summary G. Detailed Audit Findings II. MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE...

D. Statement on Internal Control Structure E. Management Summary G. Detailed Audit Findings II. MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE... MANATEE COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT INTERNAL AUDIT DIVISION LIBRARY SYSTEM DIVISION A U D I T R E P O R T TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT A. Background... 2-3 B. Purpose/Objectives; Scope...

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA IREDELL COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA IREDELL COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA IREDELL COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT JUNE 2018 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA PASQUOTANK COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT ELIZABETH CITY, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT SEPTEMBER 2015 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA WARREN COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA WARREN COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA WARREN COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT WARRENTON, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT JUNE 2018 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office of

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA ROCKINGHAM COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA ROCKINGHAM COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA ROCKINGHAM COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT WENTWORTH, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT JUNE 2018 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA FORSYTH COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA FORSYTH COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA FORSYTH COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT JUNE 2018 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA PAMLICO COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT BAYBORO, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT JULY 2016 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office of

More information

AUDITOR GENERAL DAVID W. MARTIN, CPA

AUDITOR GENERAL DAVID W. MARTIN, CPA AUDITOR GENERAL DAVID W. MARTIN, CPA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA Operational Audit SUMMARY Our operational audit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, disclosed the following: Finding No. 1: University

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA YANCEY COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT BURNSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT SEPTEMBER 2015 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA SURRY COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT DOBSON, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT JULY 2016 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office of the

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ONSLOW COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT NOVEMBER 2014 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE AUDITOR STATE OF NORTH

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHE COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT FISCAL CONTROL AUDIT JEFFERSON, NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR LESLIE W. MERRITT, JR., CPA, CFP STATE AUDITOR ASHE COUNTY CLERK OF

More information

AUDIT REPORT. Audit of the Orange County Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts- Financial Controls and Revenue Collection Procedures

AUDIT REPORT. Audit of the Orange County Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts- Financial Controls and Revenue Collection Procedures Audit of the Orange County Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts- Financial Controls AUDIT REPORT Report by the Office of the County Comptroller Martha O. Haynie, CPA County Comptroller County Audit Division

More information

Peace Officer Standards and Training Board July 1, 1997, through June 30, 2000

Peace Officer Standards and Training Board July 1, 1997, through June 30, 2000 O L A OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR STATE OF MINNESOTA Financial-Related Audit Peace Officer Standards and Training Board July 1, 1997, through June 30, 2000 MAY 17, 2001 01-26 COVER.DOC COVER.DOC

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA VANCE COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT HENDERSON, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT NOVEMBER 2015 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA CurrituckCurrituck STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA CURRITUCK COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT CURRITUCK, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT JUNE 2018 STATE OF NORTH

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA FISCAL CONTROL AUDIT REPORT OF UNION COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT MONROE, NORTH CAROLINA FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2002 THROUGH MAY 31, 2003 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR RALPH

More information

LA14-24 STATE OF NEVADA. Performance Audit. Department of Public Safety Office of Director Legislative Auditor Carson City, Nevada

LA14-24 STATE OF NEVADA. Performance Audit. Department of Public Safety Office of Director Legislative Auditor Carson City, Nevada LA14-24 STATE OF NEVADA Performance Audit Department of Public Safety Office of Director 2014 Legislative Auditor Carson City, Nevada leg Audit Highlights Highlights of performance audit report on the

More information

Judiciary Superior Court of New Jersey Hudson Vicinage

Judiciary Superior Court of New Jersey Hudson Vicinage New Jersey State Legislature Office of Legislative Services Office of the State Auditor Judiciary Superior Court of New Jersey Hudson Vicinage July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2002 Richard L. Fair State Auditor

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BURKE COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT APRIL 2013 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE AUDITOR BURKE COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT MORGANTON,

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA DURHAM COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT MAY 2018 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office of the

More information

STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER 110 STATE STREET ALBANY, NEW YORK 12236

STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER 110 STATE STREET ALBANY, NEW YORK 12236 THOMAS P. DiNAPOLI COMPTROLLER STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER 110 STATE STREET ALBANY, NEW YORK 12236 GABRIEL F. DEYO DEPUTY COMPTROLLER DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT SEPTEMBER 2014 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE AUDITOR Beth A. Wood,

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE CONTROLLER STATEWIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT PROCEDURES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2010 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE AUDITOR OFFICE

More information

Board of Funeral Service. Functional Analysis & Records Disposition Authority

Board of Funeral Service. Functional Analysis & Records Disposition Authority Board of Funeral Service Functional Analysis & Records Disposition Authority Presented to the State Records Commission January 24, 2002 Table of Contents Functional and Organizational Analysis of the Alabama

More information

O L A. Office of the Secretary of State January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2006 OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR STATE OF MINNESOTA

O L A. Office of the Secretary of State January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2006 OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR STATE OF MINNESOTA O L A OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR STATE OF MINNESOTA Financial Audit Division Report Office of the Secretary of State January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2006 July 13, 2007 07-16 Financial Audit

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA BURKE COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT MORGANTON, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT JUNE 2017 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office of

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GASTON COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT FISCAL CONTROL AUDIT GASTONIA, NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR LESLIE W. MERRITT, JR., CPA, CFP STATE AUDITOR GASTON COUNTY CLERK

More information

Office of the District of Columbia Auditor

Office of the District of Columbia Auditor 027:13:LP:DM:cm Audit of the Public Service Commission Agency Fund for Fiscal Year 2009 September 30, 2013 Audit Team: Dexter Monroe, Financial Auditor A Report by the Yolanda Branche, District of Columbia

More information

ACCOUNTING SERVICES FIXED ASSETS

ACCOUNTING SERVICES FIXED ASSETS ACCOUNTING SERVICES FIXED ASSETS 450.01 Tag Control Sheets (Originals) Dates: 1976-2 Cu. Ft. Tag Control Sheets maintained by the Office of Property Control. The records generally include documents generated

More information

Short title. (1969) Statute text Sections through NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Audit Act."

Short title. (1969) Statute text Sections through NMSA 1978 may be cited as the Audit Act. ARTICLE 6 Audit Act Section 12-6-1 Short title. 12-6-2 Definitions. 12-6-3 Annual and special audits; financial examinations. 12-6-3 Annual and special audits; financial examinations. (Effective July 1,

More information

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER - NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM STATE OF LOUISIANA

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER - NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM STATE OF LOUISIANA LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER - NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM STATE OF LOUISIANA MANAGEMENT LETTER ISSUED MARCH 19, 2008 LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR 1600 NORTH THIRD STREET

More information

Alabama Board of Cosmetology. Functional Analysis & Records Disposition Authority

Alabama Board of Cosmetology. Functional Analysis & Records Disposition Authority Alabama Board of Cosmetology Functional Analysis & Records Disposition Authority Revision Presented to the State Records Commission January 25, 2001 The Table of Contents Functional and Organizational

More information

Alabama Board of Examiners in Counseling. Functional Analysis & Records Disposition Authority

Alabama Board of Examiners in Counseling. Functional Analysis & Records Disposition Authority Alabama Board of Examiners in Counseling Functional Analysis & Records Disposition Authority Presented to the State Records Commission April 25, 2007 Table of Contents Functional and Organizational Analysis

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA PERSON COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT ROXBORO, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT JUNE 2017 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office of the

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STRATEGIC AUDIT REVIEW PROCUREMENT CARDS NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL & TECHNICAL STATE UNIVERSITY GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA SEPTEMBER 2008 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR LESLIE W.

More information

TITLE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 1.1 PURPOSES AND POLICIES 220-RICR CHAPTER 30 - PURCHASES SUBCHAPTER 00 - N/A

TITLE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 1.1 PURPOSES AND POLICIES 220-RICR CHAPTER 30 - PURCHASES SUBCHAPTER 00 - N/A 220-RICR-30-00-01 TITLE 220 - DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER 30 - PURCHASES SUBCHAPTER 00 - N/A PART 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1 PURPOSES AND POLICIES A. The intent, purpose, and policy of these Procurement

More information

BYLAWS of NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

BYLAWS of NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ADOPTED: January 24, 2013 BYLAWS of NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Pursuant to the authority contained in section 1299-e, subdivision 5 of Article 5 of the Public Authorities Law, as set out

More information

INTERNAL CONTROLS 2. State Court Clerks & Clerks and Masters

INTERNAL CONTROLS 2. State Court Clerks & Clerks and Masters INTERNAL CONTROLS 2 SAMPLE RISK ASSESSMENT On Solid Ground 1 One of the most important things in an internal control toolbox is the ability of management to perform a risk assessment of their current internal

More information

GRS : Accounting Records

GRS : Accounting Records Issued to: All Agencies GRS-1000.1002: Accounting Records Last Revised: 1/26/2011 Vermont State Archives and Records Administration Vermont Office of the Secretary of State www.vermont-archives.org/records/schedules

More information

UNIFORM BUDGETING AND ACCOUNTING ACT Act 2 of The People of the State of Michigan enact:

UNIFORM BUDGETING AND ACCOUNTING ACT Act 2 of The People of the State of Michigan enact: UNIFORM BUDGETING AND ACCOUNTING ACT Act 2 of 1968 AN ACT to provide for the formulation and establishment of uniform charts of accounts and reports in local units of government; to define local units

More information

REPORT 2015/092 INTERNAL AUDIT DIVISION

REPORT 2015/092 INTERNAL AUDIT DIVISION INTERNAL AUDIT DIVISION REPORT 2015/092 Audit of the arrangements for official travel at headquarters and in field operations in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Overall

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ALEXANDER COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT TAYLORSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT SEPTEMBER 2014 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE AUDITOR STATE OF

More information

LOUISIANA BOARD OF DRUG AND DEVICE DISTRIBUTORS (FORMERLY LOUISIANA BOARD OF WHOLESALE DRUG DISTRIBUTORS) STATE OF LOUISIANA

LOUISIANA BOARD OF DRUG AND DEVICE DISTRIBUTORS (FORMERLY LOUISIANA BOARD OF WHOLESALE DRUG DISTRIBUTORS) STATE OF LOUISIANA LOUISIANA BOARD OF DRUG AND DEVICE DISTRIBUTORS (FORMERLY LOUISIANA BOARD OF WHOLESALE DRUG DISTRIBUTORS) STATE OF LOUISIANA FINANCIAL AUDIT SERVICES PROCEDURAL REPORT ISSUED OCTOBER 7, 2015 LOUISIANA

More information

IC Chapter 15. Ballot Card and Electronic Voting Systems; Additional Standards and Procedures for Approving System Changes

IC Chapter 15. Ballot Card and Electronic Voting Systems; Additional Standards and Procedures for Approving System Changes IC 3-11-15 Chapter 15. Ballot Card and Electronic Voting Systems; Additional Standards and Procedures for Approving System Changes IC 3-11-15-1 Applicability of chapter Sec. 1. Except as otherwise provided,

More information

Administrative Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of University of California Foreign Affiliate Organizations

Administrative Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of University of California Foreign Affiliate Organizations Administrative Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of University of California Foreign Affiliate Organizations August 15, 2005 I. Policy A University of California Foreign Affiliate is a University-sanctioned

More information

BYLAWS of NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSIT METRO SYSTEM, INC.

BYLAWS of NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSIT METRO SYSTEM, INC. ADOPTED: May 25, 2017 BYLAWS of NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSIT METRO SYSTEM, INC. Pursuant to the Niagara Frontier Transit Metro System, Inc. contained in section 1299-e, subdivision 5 of Article 5 of the Public

More information

TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD Austin, Texas ANNUAL INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT. Fiscal Year 2017

TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD Austin, Texas ANNUAL INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT. Fiscal Year 2017 Austin, Texas ANNUAL INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT Austin, Texas TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Internal Auditor s... 1 Introduction... 2 Internal Audit Objectives.... 3 I. Compliance with Texas Government Code 2102:

More information

Office of Inspector General Florida Independent Living Council (FILC)

Office of Inspector General Florida Independent Living Council (FILC) Office of Inspector General Florida Independent Living Council (FILC) Report #A-1617-030 December 2017 Executive Summary In accordance with the Department of Education s fiscal year (FY) 2016-2017 audit

More information

SENATE BILL No service, wireless telecommunications service, VoIP

SENATE BILL No service, wireless telecommunications service, VoIP SENATE BILL No. 284 AN ACT concerning 911 emergency services; relating to the 911 coordinating council, composition, contracting authority, expenses; amending K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 12-5363, 12-5364, 12-5367

More information

Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts Superior Court of New Jersey Essex Vicinage

Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts Superior Court of New Jersey Essex Vicinage New Jersey State Legislature Office of Legislative Services Office of the State Auditor Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts Superior Court of New Jersey Essex Vicinage July 1, 1999 to July 31,

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHAMPTON COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT FINANCIAL RELATED AUDIT JUNE 2013 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE AUDITOR NORTHAMPTON COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT

More information

53RD LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - SECOND SESSION, 2018

53RD LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - SECOND SESSION, 2018 SENATE BILL RD LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - SECOND SESSION, 0 INTRODUCED BY Bill Tallman 0 AN ACT RELATING TO PUBLIC PURCHASES; TRANSFERRING PROCUREMENT-RELATED FUNCTIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF

More information

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL for the SINGLE AUDIT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL for the SINGLE AUDIT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU AUDIT DIVISION REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL for the SINGLE AUDIT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA For the years ending JUNE 30, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 RELEASE DATE: January 10, 2014 DUE DATE:

More information

Financial Operations 101

Financial Operations 101 Financial Operations 101 Chris Shotwell, Director Financial Operations Tina Ward, College Business Analyst Ty Back, Fiscal Compliance Officer Jeremy Teal, Fiscal Compliance Officer Topics QuickBooks (QBO)

More information

A REPORT BY THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER

A REPORT BY THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER A REPORT BY THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER Alan G. Hevesi COMPTROLLER DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES CONTROLS OVER THE ISSUANCE OF DRIVER S LICENSES AND NON-DRIVER IDENTIFICATIONS 2001-S-12

More information

Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts Superior Court of New Jersey Somerset, Hunterdon and Warren Vicinage

Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts Superior Court of New Jersey Somerset, Hunterdon and Warren Vicinage New Jersey State Legislature Office of Legislative Services Office of the State Auditor Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts Superior Court of New Jersey Somerset, Hunterdon and Warren Vicinage

More information