Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Controller presents audits: court and jail reviews clear; HR cash handling shows internal‑control weaknesses
Summary
The controller's office reported no material misstatements in the court audit and found commissary and inmate‑telephone services largely compliant; a separate review of Human Resources cash collections identified weaknesses in segregation of duties and deposit timing.
The controller of Northampton County presented three completed reviews to the Finance Committee: a court financial audit, an agreed‑upon procedures review of jail commissary and inmate telephone services, and a cash‑collection review of the Human Resources Division.
The controller said the court financial audit found "no material misstatements" and that "the cash basis of accounting...is appropriate for the court's financial reporting purposes," while noting that no opinion was expressed on internal‑control effectiveness. The controller also reported the supplemental audit (issued 12/04/2024) found "no material weaknesses or instances of noncompliance" affecting the court financial statements.
Committee members heard the jail review covered the period April 1–Sept. 30, 2024, and was requested by the Director of Corrections to confirm compliance with Title 37 of the Pennsylvania Code. The review tested commissary receipts and inmate order slips, finding prices consistent with the approved commissary price list and that receipts matched the commissary history report; out of 30 sampled receipts, 28 included inmate signatures acknowledging receipt and two signatures could not be located. The county's reviewer also tested rates charged by the vendor Global Tel Link and said inmates were charged "16¢ per minute," which the reviewer stated is in compliance with the 2024 FCC guidelines. The report concluded the commissary and telephone services were managed in compliance with applicable pricing and vendor policies, with only the two missing receipt signatures noted.
In the Human Resources cash‑collection review, auditors reported weaknesses in internal control. Specifically, deposits were prepared and submitted by the same person without a secondary review or sign‑off; receipts often lacked dates or initials by a second reviewer. Auditors tested five receipts: breakdowns of cash and checks matched deposit slips for all five, but documentation was insufficient to verify deposit timing for three of the five samples, and two deposits were not made on the same day the cash was received. Auditors recommended implementing a proper review process and ensuring timely deposits to strengthen safeguards over county cash.
The controller closed the presentation by recommending improvements to oversight and internal controls for cash collections. Committee members asked clarifying questions but did not take formal action during the session.
