AURORA | Aurora’s municipal court administration is under scrutiny after a recent internal audit revealed what officials said were significant technology weaknesses and poor cash handling practices.
The internal city audit conducted in March for court cash handling identified a high risk of fraud, but it remains unclear how all of those issues are being addressed.
“When the city auditor says, ‘I can’t say if something’s wrong,’ that’s what concerns me almost as much as her saying something is wrong,” Councilmember Curtis Gardener said during a Management and Finance Committee meeting in April.
The March audit uncovered multiple concerns about financial management and internal controls, according to the city auditor, Michelle Crawford.
Crawford said she found that the court processed approximately $1 million in cash and checks annually, with no adequate internal controls existing to safeguard cash records and receipts.
“While the system appears to capture some receipt information, it is only availablee within the system and cannot be exported,” the audit said. “The only option to document it outside the system is to take screenshots.”
The audit also found that detention staff employees were cashing checks from jail inmates and vendors, and vending machine proceeds were not being properly documented and overseen.
“Policies and procedures for cash handling did not exist for detention when the audit started,” the 2024 audit stated.
The audit proposed deadlines for changes to be implemented, ranging from April 30, 2025, to Dec. 31, 2025.
At the most recent city council Management and Finance Policy Committee meeting, July 3, the City Court Administration’s technology and cash handling practices were still a significant concern for the auditor and council members, Gardner, Alison Coombs and Francoise Bergan. Crawford reported continued issues with outdated systems and some unresolved recommendations.
One of the main deadlines was for the court administration to create a system for receipts that could produce reports by June 30.
During the meeting, Crawford said the court’s administration was still waiting on the new financial system to determine what reports can be created and that there was no definitive timeline for implementing comprehensive reporting.
It was revealed during the meeting that the court is still using manual, hand-written receipt books for cash bonds, and an internally developed IT system with limited access and reporting capabilities.
Gardner said the city council previously allocated $400,000 to implement a more robust, off-the-shelf court management system and was curious about the status of that funding.
By the end of the meeting, it was still unclear how that money was spent and whether city council approved it.
Candace Atkinson, the court administrator, said that integrating a new system would be complex and potentially more costly, involving multiple departments, including police records, prosecution and warrant systems.
“That sounds to me like a system that is set up to fail, that has integrations that are created that are kind of workarounds, instead of the more fluid integrations that are part of these different systems in their off-the-shelf capacities,” Coombs said. “If it was just a matter of cost at that time, why wasn’t it brought back to council?”
Instead, Atkinson had the court’s internal IT employees create a system without informing council members about the changes she made, to save costs and funding, according to city officials.
The city’s chief information officer, Scott Newman, said that while a new financial system called Workday is being implemented, a third-party system called Teller would help address some reporting needs for the city’s record-keeping. He then clarified that the court system integrations are not currently part of the immediate implementation plan. Newman also said that Atkinson had a meeting with him and the previous City Manager, Jim Twombly. Atkinson told them that the systems did not need to be connected.
“When Jim Twombly was still here, we did have a meeting,” Newman said. “We specifically made recommendations that we should have a third party do a process analysis so that we could understand the data flow from the police record system, to the Axon system, to judicial, to the courts administration, to prosecution, to defense attorneys, then on to the detention staff. And that was completely shut down.”
He said that he and Twombly were told no. Atkinson said she did not recall the conversation.
“We were told very emphatically across the board that, no, that should not be the case, and that things should be left to the purview of each of those respective divisions to determine what was the most appropriate function for their needs,” Newman said.
By the end of the meeting last week, council members requested more frequent updates on the court administration’s progress, along with progress reports at each meeting leading up to the next budget workshop to ensure these technological and procedural gaps are addressed.
The council members in the committee are also considering the possibility of the city hiring a third-party auditor as requested by the city auditor, even though it would cost them more. It is still unclear how funds meant for the new system were implemented and whether those changes were presented to city council or the committee before they were reappropriated.
The Sentinel might wish to audit (proofread) itself. Getting a Councilmembers name correct seems something you ought to be able to accomplish. It is not as if Curtis Gardner was just sworn in to City Council. He has been with us quite a while now.
As a former director of grant accounting for colleges, I’m astounded by the lack of reporting and feedback from the city’s financial system. We were subject to as many as 17 audits per year. We had the annual A-133 audit and audits from individual granting institutions. I replaced a director who was fired for illegal activity and for not implementing a grant module to make tracking ledger activity for future audits seamless and transparent. I quickly started learning the Sungard accounting software, so I could understand our needs. Before the first year was over, we started the implementation of the grant module. It was the best move I ever made during my 30-year career. By the end of my tenure, we were only hosting 2 or 3 full audits per year, as most agencies found our integration of a cloud-based PDF ledger system allowed them to audit complete grant ledgers remotely from their offices in Washington, DC or from Austin, TX. The granting agencies loved our output and regularly used us as an example. My point is this, I did not possess perfect information when I started implementing the new accounting tracking system; rather, I learned and improved the process by listening to my staff of accountants and the company trainers. Our focus was on making our audit process completely transparent. That, it seems to me, needs to be the goal of city financial managers!
Gosh, Kane, there you go again tooting your own personal horn about your past expertise. In this case it is like tooting the trombone in the violin section using clarinet music.
This article deals in the lack of internal controls within a cash handling governmental situation having nothing to do with grant writing controls. But it is nice to know what you did with your 30 year governmental job and how successful you say you were.
Curtis, you and Francoise should be careful not to spend a bucket of money to solve a minor potential theft problem. Be careful what Alison does or thinks. This is not her area of expertise at all, as illustrated by her silly quote in the article. My sincere prayers for you to have to deal with her on this important committee.