Summary

Section 28.35(6)(a), Florida Statutes^[1], requires the Auditor General to conduct an annual audit of the operations of the Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation (CCOC), established effective July 1, 2004.  The summary of our findings for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, and selected actions through December 31, 2005, is as follows:

• Finding No. 1:  CCOC adopted performance measures for the period October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005.  However, for some performance measures, CCOC only collected data from the Clerks for the period April 2005 through September 2005 (six months rather than a full year of data).  In addition, our review of the performance data reported by the Clerks disclosed instances where the collection rate data was incomplete and inaccurate.  

• Finding No. 2:  The criteria established for determining whether the Clerks were meeting or exceeding the performance standards pursuant to Section 28.36(6), Florida Statutes (2005), did not provide for a realistic assessment of the Clerks’ performance in terms of meriting increases in their maximum annual budgets.

• Finding No. 3:  Contracts with two consultants were entered into without the use of a competitive selection process, and CCOC minutes did not indicate the basis relied upon for not subjecting acquisitions of services to a competitive selection process. Payments made by CCOC pursuant to these contracts totaled $ 738,119 through September 30, 2005.

• Finding No. 4:  The invoices submitted pursuant to the contract for work related to the budgetary process were not in sufficient detail to permit a determination of compliance with the detailed budget included in the contract with the consultant. In addition, CCOC budgeted $88,500 for contractual expenses for this consultant for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, while payments made to this consultant during this period totaled $172,664, which exceeded the budgeted amount by $84,164.  

• Finding No. 5:  The expenditure data used in determining the maximum annual budget amounts for each Clerk pursuant to Section 28.36(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), was incomplete and was not verified by CCOC, which could lessen the reliability of the data and the maximum annual budget calculations.

• Finding No. 6:  CCOC has developed a policy for cellular telephone usage by staff, but it does not require reimbursement for all personal calls made by the Executive Director. 

• Finding No. 7:  The Executive Director received a monthly vehicle allowance pursuant to his employment contract with CCOC.  However, the amount of the vehicle allowance was not supported by a typical months travel voucher filed by the Executive Director pursuant to the requirements of Section 112.061(7)(f), Florida Statutes. 

The Chairperson's written response is included in this report as Appendix A.