Audits show municipal court problems extend beyond St. Louis County

ST. LOUIS COUNTY • Think St. Louis County’s municipal courts are bad?

You may want to sit down before reading audit findings scrutinizing some of their counterparts in out-state Missouri.

Recent state audits in these rural outskirts have uncovered a slew of problems, including:

• Illegal fees and tickets that were voided without a prosecutor or judge’s authorization.
• Court clerks with broad, unchecked power to issue warrants and amend charges and collect money without oversight.
• Lax bookkeeping, delayed deposits and missing receipts.
• Error-filled or late reports on the courts’ caseload and operations.
• Questions of missing money.
• Public scrutiny has focused on problems in the 90 municipal courts in St. Louis County. But the recent reports — released by the state auditor in December and January — seem to validate what officials here have said all along: that criticism has been unfairly isolated to them.

“The narrative was every court in St. Louis County is incompetent and not doing things properly," said St. Ann’s city administrator, Matt Conley. “But I think we’re going to see as more and more of these come out, that 75 to 80 percent of these that come out of out-state Missouri are going to be horrible.”

Since being sworn in as state auditor last year, Nicole Galloway has expanded the Municipal Courts Initiative launched by former auditor Tom Schweich in October 2014. She has promised to hold the courts accountable and “rebuild faith and trust” in a system that many view as compromised by its revenue-raising mindset.

The Schweich initiative was to target 10 municipal courts in six counties across Missouri. They were chosen based on traffic stop data and complaints to his office.

Galloway, who took over as auditor after Schweich’s death, has since added more courts and expanded the focus.

In addition to looking at accounting practices, the audits now place a larger emphasis on statistical information on warrants, tickets and other penalties, as well as practices that may damage the court’s credibility or result in people being treated unfairly.

Five of the seven municipal courts audited so far under Galloway have received ratings of “fair” and “poor,” on a four point scale that also includes “good” and “excellent.” They are in Jasper, Clay and Lincoln counties.

Charted it on a map, the ratings get worse the farther out you go.

In Carl Junction, a city of about 7,445 people in Jasper County, in the far southwestern corner of Missouri, the audit found “significant weaknesses” in accounting procedures and controls and at least $65,373 in missing money.

The court clerk there, since charged with felony stealing, had free rein to dismiss cases and amend moving violations to non-moving violations to save people license points that could affect their insurance. Tickets went missing and receipts were filed late. Required reports weren’t submitted to the city or state, and one bail payment went 237 days without being deposited, according to the court’s audit.

The Carl Junction city administrator did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Nearby Joplin, with about 50,150 residents, also received a “poor” rating. Among several findings, the audit noted poor record keeping that increased the risk that defendants would be fined even if they had done community service in lieu of payment or spent time in jail instead.

Bail and restitution payments had languished, according to the audit. And, perhaps most surprising, the audit found 120 people who had access to the court’s computer system but should not. Of those, 89 no longer worked for the city.

Moreover, 178 more had some degree of access beyond what was proper based on their job responsibilities — for example, someone who worked in the health department.

Anyone with access could see personal information, change case information or ostensibly dismiss tickets.

Joplin’s city manager also did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Receiving “fair” ratings were Winfield, in Lincoln County; Mosby, in Clay County; and Foley, in Lincoln County.

• Portrait of a speed trap: Foley, Mo.

• Municipal courts: A progress report on reform

Of six courts from St. Louis County that are to be audited, one has been completed, in St. Ann. That city’s rating: “good.”

Conley said the rating should have been “excellent” but wasn’t because of a “we’re gonna hang ’em, and we’re gonna hang ’em high” attitude toward St. Louis County municipalities.

Conley pointed out that there were only two negative findings in the audit — and both were relative to police, not court, functions.

The audit cited St. Ann police for charging extra fees on bond payments, for $38,000 in revenue in 2014, and for failing to retain the underlying records for its annual report on traffic stop data.

The city has disputed whether the bond fee was illegal. And Conley said the attorney general’s office, which collects the traffic stop reports, doesn’t require retention of the underlying data.

Joining St. Ann with a “good” rating was Foristell, a city of about 500 on the St. Charles and Warren County divide.

The major municipal reform legislation that passed last fall includes a tighter cap on what can be raised in traffic revenue. It was spurred by heavy criticism of St. Louis County’s municipal courts and delivered restrictions accordingly — saying a city cannot derive more than 20 percent of its revenue from traffic cases — 12.5 percent in St. Louis County.

The St. Louis County municipalities are fighting the uneven application of the cap in court. Conley said the recent audit findings — which showed Foley, for instance, was getting 85 percent of its revenue from its municipal court — further support their argument that St. Louis County shouldn’t be treated any differently.

“Whatever the percentage is, make it statewide. Make it zero, we don’t care,” he said. “The city of St. Ann is still going to survive if it’s zero, but can the city of Foley?”

Editor's note: This story has been updated to correct the population of Joplin, Mo.

City • County • Population • Rating

Carl Junction • Jasper • 7,445 • Poor

• Cases dismissed without a prosecutor's or judge's signature
• At least $65,373 in missing funds and possibly tens of thousands more
• Unauthorized access to court computer system
• Missing ticket entries and receipts; bond payments that languished 
• Failed to report excess court revenue to state

Corrective action: Agreed with the auditor's findings and has made changes pursuant to recommendations

Foristell • St. Charles/Warren • 505 • Good

• Numerous errors in case information submitted to the state 
• Accounts weren't reconciled and receipts weren't filed in timely manner
• Under-reported its excess revenue to state
• Potentially improper warrant and failure to appear fee
• Prosecutor did not sign off on amended tickets

Corrective action: Agreed with the auditor's findings and has made changes pursuant to recommendations

St. Ann • St. Louis County • 13,020 • Good

• Improper bond fee
• Vehicle stop data underlying annual report to state was not retained

Corrective action: Disputed the auditor's findings but has eliminated bond fee

Joplin • Jasper/Newton • 50,150 • Poor

• There were few restrictions or oversight on the voiding and dismissal of cases, which was often done without a judge or prosecutor's involvement.
• Payments on fines were not recorded or deposited in a timely manner; bond payments and restitution languished.
• Community service and time served was not properly documented.
• There were errors in case reports to the state and excess revenue was not accurately calculated.
• Tens of thousands of dollars were potentially collected in improper warrant, arrest, probation, failure to appear and booking fees.
• Nearly $6 million in money owed to the court had either been overstated or had not been identified. 

Corrective action: Agreed with many of the audit's findings and is working on recommended changes

Winfield • Lincoln • 1,404 • Fair

• Fines weren't deposited in timely manner and bond payments weren't tracked properly.
• Judge did not sign off on all case outcomes and tickets were amended without prosecutor's involvement. Clerk used prosecutor's signature stamp freely.
• Payment plans weren't documented. 
• Vehicle stop data underlying annual report to state was not retained.
• Numerous errors in case information and excess revenue calculation submitted to the state.
• A $2 sheriff's fee was collected but not disbursed.

Corrective action: Agreed with audit's findings and made changes pursuant to recommendations. Sheriff's fee was retained due to pending litigation but has now been disbursed.

Mosby* • Clay • 190 • Fair 

• Accounts weren't regularly reconciled, deposits weren't timely, payments weren't always tracked properly and there was $7,776 in unidentified bond money.
• Judge didn't sign off on all case outcomes and tickets were dismissed without judge or prosecutor's involvement.
• Report on excess revenue to the state was late and contained errors.
• Potentially improper warrant fee.

Corrective action: Agreed with audit's findings and made changes pursuant to recommendations prior to dissolving court. 

Foley • Lincoln • 161 • Fair

• Court clerk doubled as city clerk and handled most transactions with no oversight.
• Court and city receipts were not separately tracked and revealed numerous discrepancies between payments recorded and deposited. Not all tickets issued could be accounted for.
• Petty cash account was not monitored.
• Numerous errors in case information reported to state and failure to report some revenue. Excess revenue was improperly calculated. 
• Judge did not sign off on all case outcomes. Prosecutor did not sign all tickets or approve all amended tickets. Clerk used judge and prosecutor's stamp freely. 
• Potentially improper warrant, failure to appear, housing and online convenience fees. 

Corrective action: Agreed with audit's findings and made changes pursuant to recommendations. 

*Mosby has since dissolved its court

Source: Missouri state auditor's office