The Maryland Judiciary failed to solicit competitive bids for about $4 million in digital recording equipment for state courtrooms and nearly $300,000 in renovations to a district court building, according to a state audit report released Thursday.

The state’s Department of Legislative Services found that the judiciary ignored its own procurement policy, which requires competitive bidding for purchases of more than $25,000, in awarding $3.9 million in grants to 18 circuit court divisions for new equipment.

The judiciary, in its response, argued that it does not have complete jurisdiction over the state’s circuit courts -- and so is not bound by the procurement policy -- because local governments are responsible for some of the courts’ administrative functions.

Auditors disagreed.

This story continues below
Advertisement

“Because these procurements were made solely with state funds, in our opinion, these procurements should have been competitively bid,” the report said.

The report also noted that in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the judiciary paid a contract company $286,250 for renovations to a district court building without obtaining competitive bids. The company hired to do the renovations “was affiliated with the leasing company that owns the building in which this district court is located,” the report said.
Legislative Auditor Bruce Myers said he could not name the district court.

Robert M. Bell, chief judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals, said in his response that state’s Department of General Services had advised court administrators to hire their landlords to handle repairs “in keeping with lease provisions.”

Myers said that while the report cites “some big numbers,” the judiciary resolved all eight findings published in the branch’s last audit in April 2004 -- a feat he called “very unusual.”

“It’s a positive response,” Myers said. “I hope they keep that up.”

Other findings:

A purchase of chairs for one court location costing about $40,000 “appeared to have been artificially split into three separate purchases” to sidestep the procurement policy.

In August 2005 and May 2006, a circuit court administrative judge steered $1.9 million in state funds into a nonprofit foundation, rather than into the court itself, established to fund projects to improve the court. As a result, the foundation “improperly [benefited] from interest earnings on funds received.”

The judiciary prematurely distributed $111 million in property tax revenue to various state agencies in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. The funds should not have been distributed until fiscal years 2006 and 2007, respectively.

jpalazzolo@baltimoreexaminer.com