Audit of the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct

Overview

In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor has conducted a performance audit of certain activities of the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) for the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2019.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Below is a list of our audit objectives, indicating each question we intended our audit to answer and the conclusion we reached regarding each objective.

Objective	Conclusion
Are complaints that CJC receives screened promptly in accordance with Rule 6(B) of the CJC Rules of Procedure and CJC’s internal control plan?	Yes
Are docketed complaints investigated within 90 days in accordance with Rule 6(J) of the CJC Rules of Procedure?	Yes

 

To achieve our objectives, we gained an understanding of CJC’s internal control environment related to the objectives by reviewing agency rules and procedures, as well as conducting inquiries with CJC’s staff and management.

To obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to address our audit objectives, we performed the procedures described below.

Complaint Screening

To determine whether CJC screened complaints promptly, as required by Rule 6(B) of the CJC Rules of Procedure, we obtained a list of all 985 complaints received during the audit period from CJC’s Complaint Management System (CMS). We queried the data and identified 138 complaints for which the time between the receipt date and the recorded date⁵ in CMS exceeded 14 days.⁶ We then selected all 71 complaints where the time between these dates exceeded 21 days⁷ for testing. We requested a redacted version of each original complaint and recorded the date CJC had received each one in an electronic spreadsheet. We also examined CJC’s internal screening forms or its correspondence with the complainant or judge—all of which were redacted—and recorded the corresponding date of completion (for internal screening forms) or date of transmission (for correspondence) in an electronic spreadsheet. We calculated the number of days between the date each selected complaint was received and the date its screening was completed to determine whether CJC had screened each one promptly. If the number of days was above 14, we performed inquiries with CJC management to determine what had caused the delays.

Docketed Complaint Investigation

To determine whether CJC completed docketed complaint investigations within 90 days or within the timeframe it had authorized,⁸ as required by Rule 6(J) of the CJC Rules of Procedure, we obtained from CMS a list of 17 docketed complaints for which the investigations were in progress as of January 1, 2018 and 141 docketed complaints for which the investigations had begun during the audit period. We selected a judgmental, nonstatistical sample of 37 docketed complaints for which the time from the receipt date to the last modification date exceeded 90 days. We requested a redacted version of each original complaint and recorded the dates of receipt by CJC in an electronic spreadsheet. We also examined the executive director’s redacted correspondence to CJC, which included the completed investigation list and the case extension list according to the list of enclosures sent before each scheduled CJC meeting, and recorded the corresponding date of transmission in an electronic spreadsheet. We calculated the number of days between the date each of the docketed complaints was received and the date each associated investigation was completed. For durations that exceeded the 90-day timeframe or the extended timeframe authorized by CJC, if any, we performed inquiries with CJC management to determine why the delays had occurred.

When sampling, we used a nonstatistical sampling method, the results of which we could not project to the entire population.

Data Reliability

To determine the reliability of the information obtained from CMS, we conducted interviews and reviewed system processes. Additionally, we performed validity and integrity tests of the data, which included (1) comparing the total number of records provided against agency totals from CJC’s annual report, (2) testing for missing complaint identification numbers, (3) testing for invalid or duplicate identifiers, (4) testing for dates outside the audit period, and (5) tracing a sample to source documents. We determined that the information obtained from CMS for our audit period was sufficiently reliable for our audit work.

Conclusion

Our audit revealed no significant instances of noncompliance that must be reported under generally accepted government auditing standards.

5.     CMS does not currently capture the date complaints are screened. However, we learned that complaints are not recorded in CMS until after the screening process is complete. Therefore, for sampling purposes, we used the recorded date in CMS as the assumed screening date.

6.    Section B of Rule 6 of CJC’s Rules of Procedure states, “The Executive Director shall cause each complaint to be screened promptly upon its receipt.” Although the rule does not specify a definite period of time, the CJC internal control plan states, “This office is committed to reviewing complaints it receives and responding to them within, at most, two weeks of receipt.” Accordingly, we used a duration of 14 days (i.e., two full calendar weeks) to define “promptly” for our testing.

7.    Because of limited staffing at CJC, we selected a duration of 21 days to reduce instances where the delays would likely be attributed to paid time off for agency personnel or competing business priorities (e.g., preparing briefs for CJC).

8.    Section J(2) of Rule 6 of CJC’s Rules of Procedure states, “If the Executive Director recommends that further investigation is necessary before making this determination, the Commission may vote to continue the investigation on a month-to-month basis.”

 

Date published:	May 28, 2021