Report 2012-301 Recommendations and Responses in 2014-041

Report 2012-301: Judicial Branch Procurement: Six Superior Courts Generally Complied With the Judicial Branch Contracting Law, but They Could Improve Some Policies and Practices

Department Number of Years Reported As Not Fully Implemented Total Recommendations to Department Not Implemented After One Year Not Implemented as of 2013-041 Response Not Implemented as of Most Recent Response
Administrative Office of the Courts 1 3 1 n/a 0
Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus 1 2 1 n/a 0

Recommendation To: Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus

To ensure that transactions reflect the State's priorities regarding businesses owned by disabled veterans, and to comply with requirements in the judicial contracting manual, the courts we reviewed should develop formal policies to implement the DVBE program.

Response

We have added procedural language for implementation of the DVBE program in our Local Contracting Manual effective 10/01/14.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented
  • Completion Date: October 2014
  • Response Date: September 2014

Recommendation To: Administrative Office of the Courts

To ensure complete reports to the Legislature, the AOC should review and modify its methodology for excluding certain transactions from the semiannual report to ensure that the AOC is not inadvertently excluding legitimate procurements. Further, the AOC's methodology should ensure that all procurements or contracts—such as those related to court security, court reporters, and interpreters when such services result in payment by a judicial branch entity to a vendor or contractor—are included in the semiannual report unless specifically excluded by state law.

Response

The AOC reviewed and modified its methodology for excluding certain transactions from the semiannual report. Beginning with the reporting period starting January 1, 2014, the semiannual report includes payments, but not contracts, for services provided by independent contractor court reporters and independent contractor interpreters. To the limited extent a superior court may make payments for security services (given that the sheriff, and not the superior court, is generally responsible for the cost of court security under the Superior Court Security Act of 2012) such payments are also included in the semiannual report beginning with the reporting period starting January 1, 2014.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented
  • Completion Date: January 2014
  • Response Date: September 2014

Current Status of Recommendations

All Recommendations in 2014-041