Overview
The Office of the State Treasurer and Receiver General (OST) did not monitor the transmittal of civil process fees by sheriffs’ departments to OST for deposit. Based on our analysis, 9 of 14 sheriffs’ departments did not transmit civil process fees during one or more quarters of our audit period. Additionally, one sheriff’s department, on three separate occasions, sent a quarterly letter stating that it was retaining the fees to spend on its needs. The amount of the fees retained by this sheriff’s department on these three separate occasions totaled $88,859.
If civil process fees due the Commonwealth’s General Fund are not consistently transmitted by all sheriffs’ departments to OST for deposit, the fees are not available to be spent on approved state programs or services in accordance with the budget approved by the Legislature.
Authoritative Guidance
OST’s website states,
Our mission at the Office of the State Treasurer and Receiver General of Massachusetts is to prudently manage and safeguard the state’s public deposits and investments through sound business practices for the exclusive benefits of our citizens, and perform these duties with integrity, excellence, and leadership.
Monitoring civil process fee transmittals and the subsequent OST deposit of these fees would be consistent with OST’s mission “to prudently manage and safeguard the state’s public deposits and investments through sound business practices.”
Reasons for Issue
OST has no policies or procedures to monitor the transmittal of civil process fees by sheriffs’ departments to OST for deposit. OST officials told us they did not have the authority or the responsibility to monitor whether sheriffs’ departments transmitted civil process fees.
Recommendation
OST should develop and implement policies and procedures to monitor the transmittal of civil process fees by sheriffs’ departments to OST for deposit.
Auditee’s Response
[The Office of the State Auditor, or OSA] cites no specific statutory provision that authorizes the OST to audit, monitor, or demand remittance of civil process fees collected by sheriff’s departments pursuant to M.G.L. c. 262, section 8. For this reason, the OST disagrees with this finding. OST receives much more cash for deposit than just sheriff’s fees. To require that the OST must review, account for, and collect delayed or inaccurate transmittals is an administrative burden that OST is unprepared to accommodate without applying significantly more resources, which would be at a cost to both the OST and the Commonwealth. The work hours required for staff to dedicate to these tasks would be substantial and distract OST from responsibilities that are imposed by other statutes.
Auditor’s Reply
The OSA did not recommend that OST review the accuracy of the transmittals from the sheriff's departments. OSA believes the accuracy of the transmittals is the responsibility of the sheriffs' departments.
However, OSA interprets OST’s mission as prudently safeguarding deposits owed the Commonwealth through sound business practices. OST is responsible for receiving quarterly transmittals of civil process fees from sheriffs’ departments and depositing them in the General Fund. Therefore, OSA feels that it would be prudent for OST to identify instances where sheriffs’ departments have not transmitted civil process fees. As we determined during the audit, 9 of the 14 sheriffs’ departments did not transmit civil process fees during one or more quarters of our audit period. We believe it would take very little additional effort to monitor whether OST receives quarterly transmittals and deposits them in the General Fund. When it identifies instances where a sheriff’s department does not transmit, or intend to transmit, civil process fees to OST, OST should pursue collection of the funds. One method to pursue collection would be to petition the Superior Court to retrieve the funds. Under Section 12 of Chapter 200A of the Massachusetts General Laws, OST is required to petition the Superior Court to retrieve abandoned property that is not properly transmitted. OST should exercise the same diligence with instances of sheriffs failing to transmit civil process fees that it does with abandoned property. We feel that this is consistent with OST’s mission to “prudently manage and safeguard the state’s public deposits . . . through sound business practices for the exclusive benefits of our citizens.” Therefore, we stand by our recommendation that OST develop and implement policies and procedures to monitor the transmittal of civil process fees by sheriffs’ departments to OST for deposit.
| Date published: | February 28, 2022 |
|---|