State Auditor reports contracting problems in 5 county courts

State Auditor Elaine Howle’s office has found procurement and contracting problems at five state courts.

The latest judicial branch procurement report looked at Alameda, Contra Costa, Lake, Orange, and San Bernardino counties. The report issued Thursday found four of the courts failed to report high-value contracts, while three didn’t follow recommended practices for payments.

The report found Alameda County Superior Court made “questionable payments totaling $16,000” because invoices did not include documentation. The Lake County court did not have staff properly review payments, the report said.

The report also said the Orange County court exceeded approved payment limits.

The Alameda, Contra Costa, Orange, and San Bernardino county courts also failed to report every high-value contract to the Auditor’s office, the report said. These omissions limit “our ability to identify in a timely and accurate manner contracts that may warrant review,” the report warned.

The Orange County Court pushed back against some findings.

It rejected “as inaccurate and unfair the characterization that it failed to consistently report high-value contracts per state law and should immediately implement policies and procedures for notifying the State Auditor within 10 business days of entering all contracts with estimated values over $1 million when statutorily required,” Orange County Superior Court Executive Officer David Yamasaki responded.

The Auditor’s report also found that most of the courts generally complied with recommended practices, even during the shutdowns and chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Many of the purchase card transactions we reviewed were emergency purchases related to the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic and were exempt from competitive bidding requirements,” said the auditor’s report. “The processes courts followed for these emergency transactions and the goods and services they purchased were reasonable.”

The report included responses from each court detailing how they intended to comply with the recommendations, usually by updating contracting practices and materials. Most of the courts accepted the Auditor’s recommendations, though the report notes the Auditor told Lake County that its proposed changes to contract oversight were insufficient.

The contracting manuals for Alameda and Lake county courts also lacked recommended materials from the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual, the Auditor said.

State law requires the Auditor to look at contracting and procurement in at least five California courts every two years. Howle’s report two years ago found similar problems in the Imperial, Los Angeles, Monterey, Santa Barbara and Santa Clara county courts.