Tricia Bishop penned an article in The Sun concerning that legislative audit of the Clerk's Office at the Circuit Court for Baltimore City that reveals a near complete lack of understanding of the business processes in the clerk's office and the auditor's report ("Audit: Millions uncollected by clerk's office," June 15). Or, perhaps the purpose of the article was to intentionally deceive the readers?

By way of example, Ms. Bishop highlights the case of Thomas Perrin and reports that "a clerical error in 2000 nearly cost Thomas Perrin years of freedom." She spoke with Mr. Perrin's attorney, C. Justin Brown, and quotes him in the article. What she doesn't do is inform the readers that State v. Thomas Perrin was prosecuted in the District Court of Maryland, not the Circuit Court. It is hard to imagine that Mr. Brown did not disclose the correct court to Ms. Bishop. But even if he had failed to do so, the hallmark of good journalism obligated Ms. Bishop to do two things above all else, conduct a thorough investigation and to tell the truth. On both counts her article falls short.

Ms. Bishop begins the article by asserting that the clerk's office failed to pursue nearly $7.8 million in long overdue accounts. That represents an accumulation of unpaid fees and costs that go back to the 1960s and that the previous audit identified these accounts on the city sheriff's books as bad debts that should have been written off years ago.

The auditors identified those accounts on the sheriff's books because that agency had been responsible for collecting these debts since 1936 and would issue warrants and dunning notices in their attempts to collect. It should also have been reported that the court entered into a relationship with the Department of Budget and Management's Central Collection Unit in November, 1999 in an attempt to better the collection rate. Instead, Ms. Bishop's article simply reported a partial quote which reads, "There have been attempts…to collect." The full quote should read, "There have been attempts by the Baltimore City Sheriff's office and the Division of Parole and Probation to collect court fines and costs on behalf of the court."

A thorough investigation of the auditing process for the city circuit court would have revealed the close working relationship it has with the internal auditors for the judiciary. The record will show that the auditors had just conducted an audit of the clerk's office less than three months before the September 12 arrival of the legislative auditors. The clerk's office views the internal auditors as a valuable resource because they provide practical assistance and feasible recommendations to improve business practices that ensure compliance with accepted standard judiciary processes and procedures. They are able to do so because they have more than a rudimentary understanding of the court's internal systems and management practices.

It should also be noted that the Circuit Court for Baltimore City is the largest and most complex circuit court in Maryland. Because of its size and complexity, it is somewhat difficult to master the intricate details of its operations and therefore, somewhat difficult to audit and perhaps difficult to write about. And so to write about this court, particularly the Office of the Clerk, requires more than a cursory reading of an audit report or another author's article about the audit report. To do only that will result in bad journalism, at best deceiving the readers.

Frank M. Conaway, Baltimore

The writer is Clerk of Circuit Court for Baltimore City.