The Appeals Court Did Not Collect and Verify Documentation to Support Its Daily Deposits.

Audit shows these deficiencies create a greater risk that revenues obtained by the Court may not be properly recorded and deposited.

Overview

The Appeals Court did not obtain documentation to support fees collected or verify that documentation was present during its fee reconciliations. Without collecting and verifying all supporting documentation, the Appeals Court cannot reliably conclude that all revenue has been obtained, recorded, and deposited.

The Appeals Court Clerk’s Office does not obtain supporting documentation, such as receipts, for certain fees that are collected and recorded on the log sheet and classified as “miscellaneous fees.”⁷ Instead, each day, the Clerk’s Office at the Appeals Court manually transcribes and totals the funds collected onto a log sheet but does not create any other documentation to support the fees on the log sheet and assist with the reconciliation.

In addition, when completing its reconciliation between the log sheet and Forecourt Paragon Case Management System the following day, the Appeals Court Fiscal Office does not obtain all supporting documentation for certain cases where fees have been waived. For cases with a “motion to waive” or “no fee” status,⁸ for which no fee is collected, the Clerk’s Office enters that status in Forecourt. When performing its reconciliation, the Fiscal Office obtains the log sheet and any supporting documentation (such as a Forecourt-generated report of case information called the Fees Paid—Detail Report) from the Clerk’s Office, but this documentation is not always complete. We found some discrepancies between the log sheets and the supporting documentation, and our testing showed that 31 out of 49 miscellaneous fees, from 31 of the 45 deposit days tested, did not have support to determine whether the reconciliation was accurate. For 23 out of 273 cases whose status was “no fee” or “waived fee,” there was a discrepancy between the log sheets and the supporting documentation.

Authoritative Guidance

According to the Comptroller of the Commonwealth’s “Cash Recognition and Reconciliation” policy, for each transaction,

Daily system assurance must be performed by departments to ensure that there is a matching deposit. . . . This process involves comparing the results from all sources that produce or contain payments and deposit information, and ensuring that they match.

Reasons for Issue

With regard to receipts for miscellaneous fees, officials at the Appeals Court told us they felt that the log sheet itself constituted adequate supporting documentation.

The discrepancies between the log sheets and supporting documentation occur because eFileMA allows users to file 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but the Clerk’s Office has specific office hours when it processes the documents filed. If a user files outside these office hours, the Clerk’s Office may not have had the opportunity to process all the documents filed by the time the Fiscal Office reviews the Fees Paid—Detail Report, and the documents may not be included in that report. When discrepancies do occur, the Clerk’s Office and the Fiscal Office do not have a formal process to communicate them in writing.

Recommendations

1. The Clerk’s Office and the Fiscal Office should develop a process to ensure that all supporting documentation is retained for reconciliation and that any discrepancies between the log sheets and the Fees Paid—Detail Report are formally documented.
2. The Fiscal Office should confirm that all cases from the previous day have been processed before generating the Fees Paid—Detail Report.

Auditee’s Response

1. Working with the audit team, the Clerk’s Office and Fiscal Office have developed and implemented a process to ensure that all supporting documentation is retained for reconciliation, and that any discrepancies between the log sheets and the Fees Paid—Detail Report are formally documented.
2. The Clerk’s Office has implemented a temporary process, using an email folder, to reconcile and document all transactions from the previous day, including in particular those transactions generated by the eFileMA electronic filing systems after the close of regular business hours the previous day, and the Clerk’s Office and Fiscal Office are working to develop a more formal permanent process to accomplish that objective.

Auditor’s Reply

Based on the above response, the Appeals Court is taking measures to address our concerns about the reconciliation process for assessed fees.

7.     Section 4(b) of Chapter 262 of the Massachusetts General Laws allows the Appeals Court to assess miscellaneous fees for the following: photocopies (per page), certified/attested copies (per page), computer printouts (per page), electronic document printouts (per page), mailing of compact discs of electronic documents, and mailing of compact discs of oral arguments.

8.     Cases with motion to waive are cases where a party has filed as indigent. Cases with no fee are cases that are criminal.

Date published:	November 2, 2020