Connecticut Probate: AUDITORS’ REPORT OFFICE OF THE PROBATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

AUDITORS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
JOHN C. GERAGOSIAN  ROBERT J. KANE
AUDITORS’ REPORT
OFFICE OF THE PROBATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2013, 2014,
2015, and 2016

Table Of Contents
INTRODUC………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

COMMENTS……………………………………………………………………………………… 2

FOREWORD ……………………………………………………………………………………. 2
Probate Court Budget Committee ………………………………………………………. 3
Connecticut Probate Assembly…………………………………………………………… 3
Council on Probate Judicial Conduct …………………………………………………. 4
Significant Legislation………………………………………………………………………. 4

RÉSUMÉ OF OPERATIONS…………………………………………………………….. 6
Probate Fund Receipts and Expenditures………………………………………….. 6
General Fund Transfers and the Probate Court Administration Fund…… 7
Special Revenue Fund – Federal and Other Restrict Account ……………… 8
Other Matter – Prior Assessment Reporting and Collection…………………. 8
STATE AUDITORS’ FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………… 9
Personnel Records……………………………………………………………………………. 9
Statutory Probate Fee Calculation………………………………………………………… 10
Mileage Reimbursement……………………………………………………………………… 11
Whistleblower Process ………………………………………………………………………… 12

RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………………………….. 14

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………………………………………….. 17

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………….. 18

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

AUDITORS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

JOHN C. GERAGOSIAN ROBERT J. KANE
State Capitol
210 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06106-1559

April 27, 2018

AUDITORS’ REPORT
OFFICE OF THE PROBATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2013, 2014, 2015 AND 2016

We have audited certain operations of the Office of the Probate Court Administrator (PCA)
in fulfillment of our duties under Section 2-90 of the Connecticut General Statutes. The scope of our audit included, but was not necessarily limited to, the years ended June 30, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. The objectives of our audit were to:
1. Evaluate the office’s internal controls over significant management and financial
functions;
2. Evaluate the office’s compliance with policies and procedures internal to the department
or promulgated by other state agencies, as well as certain legal provisions; and
3. Evaluate the economy and efficiency of certain management practices and operations,
including certain financial transactions.

Our methodology included reviewing written policies and procedures, financial records,
minutes of meetings, and other pertinent documents; interviewing various personnel of the
department, as well as certain external parties; and testing selected transactions. We obtained an
understanding of internal controls that we deemed significant within the context of the audit
objectives and assessed whether such controls have been properly designed and placed in
operation. We tested certain of those controls to obtain evidence regarding the effectiveness of
their design and operation. We also obtained an understanding of legal provisions that are
significant within the context of the audit objectives, and we assessed the risk that illegal acts,
including fraud, and violations of contracts, grant agreements, or other legal provisions could
occur. Based on that risk assessment, we designed and performed procedures to provide
reasonable assurance of detecting instances of noncompliance significant to those provisions.

See Full Report and Source: https://www.cga.ct.gov/apa/reports/Probate%20Court%20Administrator_20180427_FY2013,2014,2015.pdf

PDF. Probate Court Administrator_20180427_FY2013,2014,2015

 


This entry was posted in Probate. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter the correct number * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.