Date: To:

October 17, 2013 Shawn T. Wooden, President, Court of Common Council

From: H. Patrick Campbell, Chief Auditor Tele: 860.757.9951

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit Report 1405

HPC

I. Executive Summary At the request of the Court of Common Council, we completed an audit in September 2013 of the Inventory, Assignment and Use of City of Hartford Vehicles. The purpose of the audit was to evaluate and test internal accounting and operating controls, the accuracy and propriety of transactions processed, the degree of compliance with established operating policy and procedures, and to recommend improvements where required. The results of our examination were reviewed with S. Wooden, President, Court of Common Council; A. Ilg, Interim Chief Operating Officer; K. Chapman, Interim Director, Department of Public Works: J. Rovella, Chief, Police Department; C. Huertas, Acting Chief, Fire Department; J. Ruffo, Interim Director, Finance Department; and, other responsible members of operating management. The summary that follows includes only exceptions disclosed and recommended operating improvements. For each reported item, management agreed to implement our recommendations or take other appropriate corrective action unless specifically indicated otherwise. Included are manage ments actions taken or planned including timeframes to resolve each finding and/or recommendation in this report. We thank management and staff from the various departments and operations involved for their cooperation and courtesies extended to us during our audit. Background Various City of Hartford (City) departments have varying degrees of responsibility for the management and oversight of City vehicles. The Finance Department is responsible for maintaining a detailed list of City vehicles and other assets in the Fixed Asset module of the MUNIS Financial Management System (MUNIS). The Equipment Services Division (ESD) of the Department of Public Works also maintains a detailed Master Equipment list of all City vehicles and equipment in an EXCEL spreadsheet and repairs and maintains these vehicles and equipment as necessary. In addition, ESD is responsible for operating the gas pumps at 40 Jennings Road and maintaining and updating the FuelMaster System that is used to monitor and control vehicle and equipment gas usage and mileage. The Hartford Police Department (HPD) and Hartford Fire Department (HFD) also independently operate vehicle fleets and maintain detailed lists of the vehicles and equipment under the responsibility of their respective departments. These lists are maintained in EXCEL spreadsheets. The City owns and operates an extensive fleet of vehicles including those that are assigned for commuting purposes. During our review, we were provided lists of vehicles by management that reportedly included all of those with commuting privileges. At the start of our review, we were provided with a list of 51 City vehicles with commuting privileges assigned to employees.

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit

Scope The scope of our audit included various tests and reviews of City vehicle inventories, assignments and use as of July 2013. Much of our work was concentrated on the assignment and use of City vehicles with commuter privileges. The following audit procedures were performed: Reviews and evaluations of policies, procedures and the internal operating and accounting controls relating to maintaining City vehicle inventories and ledgers and the assignment and use of those vehicles; Tests and reviews of vehicle inventories maintained by the Department of Public Works and Police and Fire Departments; Tests and reviews of vehicles maintained in the MUNIS Fixed Asset module by the Finance Department; and Tests and reviews of the FuelMaster System maintained and operated by the Department of Public Works ESD. Our examination did not include vehicles owned and operated by the Hartford Public Schools. General As noted in the details of this report, although City Administration had developed and documented a City of Hartford Vehicle Use Policy which included provisions for City vehicles with commuter privileges, it was not formally authorized, issued and implemented. According to the COH Vehicle Use Policy, it was effective August 1, 2011, however, after it was implemented by the City Administration a number of unions objected, took exception to it and it was subsequently retracted by the Administration. As a result, many of the key provisions of the policy were not being followed. We also noted, after recent incidents involving City of Hartford vehicles, that a number of the terms and conditions of the Policy need to be updated and/or improved before it is implemented. In addition, we found that the current process of accounting for and controlling City vehicles is ineffective, inefficient and prone to errors and omissions. This also applies to the management and oversight of City of Hartford license plates and registrations. II. Audit Results City Vehicles with Commuter Privileges Various tests of the assignment and use of City vehicles including those with commuter privileges disclosed the following: 1. Although City Administration had developed and documented a City of Hartford Vehicle Use Policy (COH Vehicle Use Policy), which included provisions for City vehicles with commuter privileges, it was not formally authorized, issued and implemented. According to notations on the COH Vehicle Policy, it was effective August 1, 2011, however, after it was implemented by the City Administration a number of unions objected, took exception to it and it was subsequently retracted by the City Administration.

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit

2. Because the COH Vehicle Use Policy was not authorized and implemented, most of the requirements, both related and unrelated to vehicles with commuter privileges, including some key requirements, were not being followed. This included, but was not limited to the following: a. Including employee commuter use of City vehicles as a taxable event. b. Verifying that employees have valid drivers licenses. c. Requiring employees to confirm in writing that they have read, understand and agree to follow the Policy accordingly. A number of these issues are addressed in more detail throughout this report. 3. As recent as March 2013, the City reportedly had a total of 73 vehicles with commuter privileges. At the start of our review in July, the Mayors Office provided us with a detailed list of City vehicles assigned to employees with commuting privileges which included 51 vehicles assigned to the Mayors Office (2), Chief Operating Officer (1), Department of Families, Children, Youth and Recreation (1), Department of Public Works (5); Department of Health and Human Services (2), Department of Development Services (2); Fire Department (3), Police Department (34) and the Department of Emergency Services and Telecommunications (1). Various tests of this listing including independent confirmations and reconciliations of the number of these vehicles with the respective department management and reviews of related operations disclosed the following: a. In an independent review and confirmation of the vehicles on this list with Fire Department management, we noted that it did not include 14 vehicles designated by the Fire Department as being commuter vehicles. Fire Department management informed us that ten of the 17 vehicles designated for commuter purposes are only used on a part-time basis when the assigned employees are on-call. It should also be noted that one of the vehicles was not currently assigned to an employee because the related position was not filled. b. A subsequent list of commuter vehicles compiled by Department of Public Works (DPW) ESD management in July 2013 and provided to us in September 2013 included 61 vehicles. This included eight additional commuter vehicles in the Fire Department and one each in the Department of Development Services and Police Department. We believe the eight additional vehicles noted in the Fire Department were included in the 14 additional vehicles we independently verified above. c. The original list we received from the Mayors Office of the 51 City vehicles assigned to employees with commuter privileges did not include Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs), asset numbers or any other key data that would allow us to reconcile the vehicles on the various lists on a one to one basis. In addition, as will be noted in another section of this report, many of the VINs and other identifying vehicle information recorded in the various spreadsheets and databases was inconsistent or incomplete/inaccurate. d. According to a letter dated September 23, 2013 from Mayor Segarra to Council President Wooden, he indicated that he reduced the number of City vehicles assigned to employees with commuter privileges further to 45. This reduced the number of City vehicles assigned to employees with commuting privileges in the Mayors Office (1); Department of Public Works ( 2); Department of Health and Human Services (1); Police Department (2); Department of Emergency Services and Telecommunications (1); and, increased the number in the Fire Department (1) from the original list of 51 vehicles we received. It should be noted that of the current list of 45 vehicles assigned with commuter privileges, 32 or about 71% are Police Department vehicles most of which are reportedly mandated according to the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreement.

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit

e. Because there is no centralized process for or the accounting of the assignment, management and oversight of City vehicles with commuting privileges, it is not clearly or readily apparent exactly how many of these arrangements are in effect at any given time. Currently, the Administration has to inquire from various departments in order to compile a reasonably accurate summary list of City vehicles assigned to employees with commuting privileges. This is not an effective or efficient way of managing these vehicles. 4. A number of matters relating to the use of City vehicles assigned to employees with commuting privileges either occurred or were brought to our attention during the course of our review. a. The Deputy Director of the Department of Public Works was involved in an accident on a Saturday night at around 9:30 p.m. in her assigned City owned vehicle. It is alleged that this employee was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Section 1 (6) of the unofficial policy titled Alcohol & Drug Use Prohibited states The use of alcohol, illegal drugs, or substances that may affect the employees ability to drive safely are prohibited. b. A vehicle assigned to the Chief Operating Officer (COO) was involved in an accident at about 2:15 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Although the COO was in the vehicle at the time of the accident, she was not driving it. Section 1 (7) of the unofficial policy titled Authorized Diver states Vehicles shall be operated only by the employee who has been authorized the use of a City vehicl e in accordance with the policies and procedures established by this document. c. A City Council member was notified by a concerned citizen who reportedly lives in Ellington, Connecticut that he has repeatedly seen a City of Hartford vehicle at a bank and grocery store in Ellington in the mid-afternoon. We attempted to contact this citizen to obtain more information, but have been unsuccessful to date. Again, the Policy should address using City vehicles in this manner. We referred this to DPW management for follow-up and resolution. As noted, all of these matters are dealt with in varying degrees under a number of sections of the unofficial COH Vehicle Use Policy. While it is not necessarily the case that these incidents would have been prevented if the COH Vehicle Use Policy was authorized and in effect, at a minimum, the policy would have been available as the basis for any potential indemnification of responsibility by the City and/or follow-up including, but not limited to, disciplinary action, deemed appropriate by management. In addition, the assignment type and acceptable uses of these vehicles, as noted in the next section, were not documented. 5. According to Section 3 of the unofficial COH Vehicle Use Policy, the following three types of vehicle assignments for exclusive use are allowed: a. Assigned Vehicle for Employees Unrestricted Use b. Assigned Vehicle for the Employees Restricted Use, and c. Assigned Vehicle/Work Related Use Only Each of these three types of vehicle assignments allow for commuting privileges. While the Unrestricted Use and Restricted Use types allow for the personal use of these vehicles by employees, it is not clearly defined what would be considered appropriate personal use. The Work Related Use Only type of assignment prohibits the personal use of the vehicles in this category. Again, acceptable levels and types of personal use are not defined in the unofficial policy. It should also be noted that Section 1 (11) of the unofficial COH Vehicle Use Policy titled Personal Use Prohibited further speaks to the personal use of City vehicles. According to this section, The use of City vehicles for
4

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit reasons other than conducting City business is prohibited. This is in conflict with the previously noted Section 3 of the policy which allows for an undefined amount of personal use. We recommend that any allowable personal use of City vehicles other than commuting be either eliminated or restricted to the greatest extent possible. Any allowable personal uses of City vehicles should be very clearly defined in the policy. 6. The unofficial COH Vehicle Use Policy deals in a number of ways with the personal use of City vehicles and how this use should be accounted for according to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requirements. According to the Personal Use Test of the policy, If you drive a City vehicle to commute to or from work, or to conduct personal business you have created a taxable event. With the exception of what is deemed to be a Qualified Nonpersonal Use Vehicle by the IRS, the commuting and any applicable personal use of a vehicle must be accounted for as a financial benefit to the employee. While most clearly marked police and fire vehicles and unmarked vehicles used by law enforcement officers that are officially authorized would most likely meet the Qualified Nonpersonal Use Vehicle requirements, there are some restrictions and limitations. We noted and confirmed with the Supervising Payroll Manager that the commuting and personal use of City vehicles was not being accounted for or recorded as a financial benefit to any employees using the vehicles for these purposes. As a result, employees are not being taxed as required for these financial benefits. We recommend that immediate action be taken to properly account for the commuting and personal use of City vehicles in accordance with IRS regulations. This should include determining if employees can or should be retroactively charged for these benefits. 7. In an attempt to determine the extent and propriety of the use of vehicles assigned to employees with commuting privileges, we obtained a download of data regarding mileage incurred and gas use by vehicle from the FuelMaster System. We used the previously noted list of 61 vehicles assigned with commuting privileges as the basis for this test. Various analyses of this data and reviews of related operations disclosed the following: a. It appears that mileage and gas use is not always being properly accounted for and recorded in the FuelMaster system. We noted that the annual mileage on two of these vehicles totaled 90,927 and 495,865, respectively. It is our understanding that in certain instances, employees may need to manually enter mileage into the FuelMaster system. b. The gas use reported on three vehicles totaled more than 1,900 gallons per vehicle per year. In one instance, the gas usage averaged about 46 gallons per week. We referred this information to the respective Department Directors for additional review and follow-up. c. Five of the vehicles were used for 2,770 or less miles per year or about 53 miles per week. It would appear that these vehicles are getting limited usage and may be able to be replaced by the use of a personal vehicle or from the use of a vehicle from a designated pool of City vehicles. d. The FuelMaster system and data is used as the basis for identifying and scheduling routine vehicle maintenance and meeting any vehicle warranty requirements. As a result, the accuracy and integrity of this data is very important. If this data is not accurate, vehicle maintenance and warranty requirements could be compromised. e. Currently the FuelMaster system and data is not being analyzed and used by management to ensure that vehicle mileage and gas use are being recorded and accounted for accurately. In addition, it is not being used to monitor the propriety and reasonableness of mileage and gas use.

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit

We recommend that DPW management take action to ensure that mileage and gas use are recorded and accurately accounted for in FuelMaster. In addition, we recommend that DPW, the Mayors Office and Department management determine the feasibility of using the FuelMaster system and data to monitor the propriety and reasonableness of City vehicle mileage and gas use. We also recommend that the Mayors Office determine the feasibility/practicality of using GPS to monitor and or restrict the use of City vehicles with and without commuter privileges. 8. A number of issues and concerns were raised regarding how a vehicle that was originally purchased and used by the Police Department ended up being assigned to and used by the Chief of Staff of the Mayor. We obtained a Transfers or Deletions of Fixed Assets form from the Police Department relating to this vehicle. Based on our review of this form and related matter, we noted the following: a. The vehicle was reported to be transferred to City Hall as of October 10, 2012. There is no indication on the form who requested the transfer of this vehicle. According the Police Department management, the Chief Operating Officer initiated the request for this vehicle to be transferred to City Hall. b. The form was approved and signed by the individual responsible for managing the Police Department vehicle fleet on October 12, 2012. We believe that the transfer of assets from one department to another should be reviewed and approved by a higher level of management. As noted elsewhere in this report, related policies and procedures were not documented. c. The form indicates that the vehicle was received by DPW ESD management on October 12, 2012. Police Department management informed us, however, that they personally delivered the vehicle to City Hall. Police Department management informed us that this vehicle was transferred to the COO at her request and for her use. They also indicated that they were not involved in how this vehicle was assigned after the initial transfer. This represents an example of the policy, procedure and control issues relating to the management, oversight, assignment and use of vehicles with commuter privileges noted throughout this report. 9. Councilman Kenneth H. Kennedy introduced an Ordinance to amend chapter VIII Section 2 regarding the Use of City Vehicles. According to the Ordinance, Unless required by an employees collective bargaining agreement, it shall be the policy of the City of Hartford that motor vehicles will be provided to only the four following City employees on a 24 hour basis. a. b. c. d. Mayor of the City of Hartford Police Chief of the City of Hartford Police Department Fire Chief of the City of Hartford Fire Department Director of the City of Hartford Public Works Department

It also notes that Unless required by an employees collective bargaining agreement, no City of Hartford employee shall be provided a motor vehicle of any kind on a 24 hour basis unless the Court of Common Council specifically authorizes the use of the motor vehicle in a resolution solely for the purpose of granting authorization for 24 hour usage. As previously noted, the Police Department currently makes up 32 or 71% of the currently designated vehicles with commuting privileges. Most of these also appear to be mandated by the collective bargaining agreement. In an attempt to further reduce the number of vehicles with commuting privileges to the proposed number of four, the use of a vehicle pool should be considered by management. The terms and conditions of the Police collective bargaining agreement would have to lapse and be renegotiated before this could be considered for applicable Police vehicles. In a letter dated September 16, 2013 from Chief Rovellas Office to Council President Wooden, a number of justifications are made for maintaining this level of Police Department vehicles
6

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit

with commuter privileges and the implications this change could have on Police Department operations. Police Department management also informed us that replacing these individually assigned vehicles with a pooled vehicle management model would significantly impede the Departments ability to maintain the fleet and hold individuals accountable for the treatment of Department vehicles. We recommend that action be taken to update, improve and formally authorize and issue the COH Vehicle Use Policy. Provisions of the current policy may be able to be implemented for those employees that are not affiliated with a bargaining unit until the official policy is put in place. We also recommend that action be taken to address all of the other findings and recommendations relating to City vehicles with commuting privileges noted above. Management Action Plan Completion Date: December 31, 2013 Responsible Persons: A. Ilg, Interim Chief Operating Officer; K. Chapman, Interim Director, Department of Public Works There needs to be one and only one motor vehicle master list that lists all appropriate data that all using departments utilize as their needs dictate. I strongly feel that no using department be the gatekeeper of this type of information. It is my understanding that the mileage of vehicles fueling via the FuelMaster System is automatically recorded. Therefore, the oddities occur when the system is either overridden by the driver or the minicomputer picks up bad data. We will monitor these occurrences and attempt to find the cause. The issue concerning HFD license plates being unaccounted for or missing is difficult to accomplish as many years and numerous staffing changes have occurred. We will do further research on this matter but I am not optimistic. The safe storage of spare keys needs to be improved and will be addressed a.s.a.p. The remaining recommended items appear to be feasible and will be addressed over the next few weeks. City Fleet Management and Oversight As noted in the background section above, the Finance, Public Works, Police and Fire departments all have separate and distinct responsibilities for management and oversight of City vehicles. Various tests of the inventories and ledgers of vehicles managed by each of these departments and reviews of related operations disclosed the following: General Various tests and reviews disclosed the following: 1. The accounting for and control over motor vehicle registrations and license plates by DPW ESD needs significant improvement. The City has and uses two types of license plates, both are issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). One is the standard license plate typically issued by DMV at random at the time of the registration. The other type is a standard plate numbering system developed for and issued to municipalities with an acronym for the related municipality and sequential numbers from 1 to xxx. In Hartfords case, the acronym is HFD. It
7

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit

should also be noted that there are different requirements for these two types of registrations. We noted issues with both of these registration types and license plates. a. We confirmed with a representative of the DMV that they have issued the City 799 HFD licenses plates in sequence to-date starting with the number 1. Using Audit Command Language (ACL), our specialized audit software, we compiled a sequential list of these registration/license numbers from the Master Equipment list maintained by DPW ESD. Based on our initial review, we found that a total of 278 HFD plate numbers were not accounted for by DPW ESD in the Master Equipment list. During our review, ESD management was able to account for 104 of the 278 HFD plates leaving 174 HFD plates still unaccounted for at this time. b. We also noted that a number of the standard issue license plates were also not accounted for properly. Again, using ACL, we compared and reconciled registration/license plate numbers received from the DVM for the Citys most current grand list with the registration/license plate numbers in the Master Equipment list. We found that five registration/license plate numbers in the Master Equipment list were not in the Citys grand list data received from the DMV. As a result, it appears that the registrations for these license plates have expired. We also found that 18 standard issue registration/license plate numbers in the Citys grand list data received from the DMV were not accounted for in the Master Equipment list. Further reviews disclosed that five of the 18 vehicles appear to currently have HFD type plates noted above. It was not clear why these registration/license plate numbers were not accounted for properly in the Master Equipment list. Finally, there were no registration/license plate numbers recorded in the Master Equipment list for eight vehicles including two sport utility vehicles and six vans. Subsequent reviews disclosed that a registration/license plate number for one of these vehicles was recorded in the Citys grand list data received from the DMV. As a result of the above and other data accuracy issues, it is not clear that all City license plates are physically accounted for accurately accounted for in all applicable databases, all vehicles are properly registered and no registrations have expired. We provided DPW ESD management with lists of these items for follow-up and resolution. 2. During our review and reconciliation of the vehicle databases maintained separately by DPW, Police and Fire, we were unable to readily reconcile and verify the completeness and accuracy of the information in the separate files because VINs and other key vehicle identifying information was not always accurate. We also noted instances where the same license plate was assigned to two different vehicles. In addition, we noted that each entity spends a considerable amount of time updating and maintaining these lists. These largely manual efforts and three databases are redundant and not the most effective or efficient way of maintaining this data. Ideally, there should be one centralized database of vehicles maintained by DPW that could be jointly accessed by both the Police and Fire Departments as needed. 3. Using ACL, we compared data recorded in the MUNIS Fixed Asset module to data recorded in the DPW ESD Master Equipment list. At the time of our review, there were 703 vehicles recorded in the DMV ESD Master Equipment list. When we performed our comparison of these vehicles to the MUNIS Fixed Asset module, however, we were only able to match 336. We used the VIN as the key data field to perform the match. Subsequent reviews showed that a significant number of the VINs in the MUNIS Fixed Asset module were incorrect. Based on the results of this review it is not clear how DPW and Finance Department management ensure that the information in their respective databases is accurate and up-to-date. We recommend that DPW and Finance Department management take action to ensure that all vehicles and equipment are completely and accurately accounted for and in both the MUNIS Fixed Asset module and the DPW ESD Master Equipment list. Ideally one database should be used.

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit

4. The last complete inventory of City vehicles was performed by an external firm in January 2011. To help ensure that City vehicles are accurately accounted for and controlled, we recommend that DPW management consider performing inventories of City vehicles on a more frequent basis. We recommend that action be taken by Public Works, Police, Fire and Finance Department management to ensure that all City of Hartford vehicle information in the various systems and databases is accurate and up-to-date. We also recommend that DPW management take action to ensure that all license plates are properly accounted for and adequately controlled in the future. Management Action Plan Completion Date: December 31, 2013 Responsible Persons: K. Chapman, Interim Director, Department of Public Works; J. Ruffo, Interim Director, Finance Department; J. Rovella, Chief, Police Department; C. Huertas, Acting Chief, Fire Department See response noted above and those following. Department of Public Works As previously noted, at the time of our review, DPW provided us with a Master Equipment list with 703 City vehicles. This included all City vehicles and various types of equipment. Our tests and reviews of this data concentrated primarily on cars and light trucks that would be used mostly for driving rather than physical work purposes. Various tests and reviews of this data disclosed the following: 1. Procedures relating to the management and oversight of the Citys vehicle fleet were not documented and needed improvement. 2. DPW ESD management informed us that while it is not official they have been using the COH Vehicle Use Policy. 3. As noted in the section regarding City Vehicles with Commuter Privileges above, the FuelMaster system and data is not being analyzed and used by management to monitor and determine the propriety and reasonableness of mileage and gas use. This data is also not being used by management to evaluate the use of City vehicles without commuter privileges. Monitoring and evaluating this data could assist management in identifying vehicles with excessive mileage or gas use or those with little or no use that could be reassigned, eliminated from the fleet or switched to the use of a pool of vehicles rather than being individually assigned and used. 4. Vehicle keys are maintained in the DPW EMS offices at 40 Jennings Road. During our tour and review of the offices, we noted that the vehicle keys were not being maintained in an area with restricted access. 5. Prior to our review, the Chief of Staff was found to have been using a City-owned vehicle after his termination date. It was not clear why his vehicle and keys were not returned to the City and secured prior to his last day of work. We understand that the Administration is working to develop, document and implement policies and procedures to address matters such as these in the future. These procedures should include requiring employees to return City vehicles and all sets of keys to the DPW ESD offices at 40 Jennings Road in a reasonable amount of time before their respective last day of employment.
9

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit We recommend that DPW management take action to ensure that procedures relating to the management and oversight of the Citys vehicle fleet are updated as appropriate and documented. We also recommend that DPW management ensure that vehicle keys are maintained in a secure location and manner and the other matters noted above are addressed as necessary. Management Action Plan Completion Date: December 31, 2013 Responsible Persons: K. Chapman, Interim Director, Department of Public Works See response noted above and those following. Police Department At the time of our review, Police Department management provided us with a list of City vehicles managed by their department. This list included a total of 268 vehicles including 34 vehicles that had been assigned to employees with commuting privileges. Various tests of the 268 vehicles being managed, used and accounted for by the Police Department and reviews of related operations disclosed the following: 1. With the exception of the limited information in the Hartford Police Union Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), policies and procedures relating to the management and oversight of the Police Departments vehicle fleet were not documented. 2. Again, with the exception of the limited information in the CBA, the Police Department did not have documented policies and procedures regarding the assignment and use of City-owned vehicles. In light of this, we recommend that Police Department management use the Citys policy for these matters, once it is implemented, with the exception for any more restrictive internal requirements deemed necessary by Police Department management. Police Department management informed us that they are in the process of developing further procedures for these processes. 3. As previously noted, the Mayors most recent status report on City vehicles with commuting privileges dated Se ptember 23, 2013 there are currently 45 vehicles with these privileges. This includes 32 police vehicles assigned to the Chief of Police (1), Assistant Chief (1), Deputy Chiefs (6), Captains (3), Lieutenants (15), Canine Officers (5) and EAP Coordinator (1). According to Section 3.9 Motor Vehicles or Vessels of the CBA, It is understood and agreed, effective July 1, 1994, Police Captains who are subject to callback will be assigne d a city vehicle and certain communications equipment for the sole and limited purpose of performing their official duties and that such assignment of vehicles and equipment to the classification of Police Captains may be revoked at any time at the sole discretion of the Chief of Police, provided that similar action shall be taken against any Deputy Chief. The CBA also indicates that the Chief of Police may assign a city vehicle to Police Lieutenants and each canine handler shall be assigned a vehicle in good working order and equipped for safe canine transportation for their exclusive use. According to Section 4.1 B. of the CBA Lieutenants will be assigned a city vehicle as outlined in Section 3.9 of this Agreement or be compensated as outlined in Section 4.2(I) of this Agreement. We were provided an internal interdepartmental memorandum dated September 11, 2013 to the Chief of Police detailing CBA, financial, operating and other justifications for these 32 vehicles including details regarding the number of take home vehicles currently in use by Police in other Connecticut cities and towns including New Haven
10

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit

Bridgeport, Meriden, Middletown, Waterbury and New Britain. It is our understanding that this data was provided to the Mayor for his information. It should be noted that we did not separately audit or verify the data in the memorandum. We recommend that action be taken during the next CBA negotiations to further reduce the number of mandated Police Department vehicles in conjunction with other contract terms and conditions including call back provisions and related financial arrangements. Unless all of these employees are on call 24/7, consideration should also be given to utilizing a vehicle pool model rather than individually assigning vehicles to employees. 4. Police Department management informed us that they compile monthly mileage reports for each vehicle and that this information is used to track vehicle usage and maintenance separate from what was referred to as the unreliable FuelMaster System. Police Department management also informed us that when the FuelMaster System is functioning and available, reviews of fuel usage will also be conducted. We noted, however, that the related process and procedures relating to these reviews are not documented. Police Department management also indicated that they have a number of spare vehicles that are used during regular maintenance and repairs and that these and the Chiefs vehicle will most likely show limited mileage. The process, procedures and results of these reviews should be documented. In addition, we recommend that the Police Department Fleet Manager receive training on and appropriate view only access to the FuelMaster System to allow for additional review and oversight of this data. 5. There were no procedures for performing periodic reviews of all Police Department vehicles to verify the ongoing need of each vehicle, both with and without commuting privileges, in the fleet. This could be done by analyzing the mileage, gas use and other applicable factors for each vehicle. Based on these analyses, management can then determine if it might be more cost effective to either eliminate vehicles or, as previously noted, utilize a vehicle pool as deemed appropriate. We noted that the Police Department vehicle listing included eight vehicles identified as deadlined. In addition, there was one vehicle classified as Removed from Inventory on the inventory listing. According to Police Department management, five of the eight deadlined vehicles have been offline since as early as April 2013 awaiting transmission replacements or other repairs. It was recently decided not to repair these vehicles due to a lack of funds and as a result they will be eliminated from the fleet. 6. Using ACL, we performed various analyses and comparisons of the vehicles recorded on the Police Department vehicle inventory listing to related data on the Master Equipment list maintained by DPW ESD. We concentrated our efforts on passenger type vehicles including sedans, sport utility vehicles and vans. We found that the DPW ESD Master Equipment list contained 278 vehicles of this type compared to 268 vehicles of this type on the Police Department vehicle inventory listing. Due to the different vehicle naming conventions, we were unable to readily reconcile the vehicles in these two databases. We then performed a similar analysis and comparison based on VINs and found that 53 VINs in the DPW ESD Master Equipment list did not agree with the VINs in the Police Department vehicle inventory listing. A closer inspection of the VINs disclosed that many of them were incomplete/incorrect in one or the other databases. We also noted that there were three duplicate vehicle records in the Police Department vehicle inventory listing. We provided DPW ESD and Police Department management the details of our test results for follow-up and resolution. Again, this is an example of the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of manually maintaining multiple databases with essentially the same information in two separate departments. If management deems it necessary and appropriate to continue to maintain these two databases, we recommend that HPD management periodically reconcile the information in their database with the information being maintained in the DPW ESD Master Equipment list. Any variances identified during this process should be follow-up and resolved.

11

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit

We recommend that Police Department management develop document and implement the policies, procedures, and controls noted above. We also recommend that Police Department management follow-up on and resolve the variances and other issues identified relating to the Police Department vehicle inventory listing above. Management Action Plan Completion Date: December 31, 2013 Responsible Persons: J. Rovella, Chief of Police We agree with the recommendations noted above and will take action to develop, document and implement procedures as noted. In addition, we will follow-up on and resolve the variances and other issues identified. Fire Department At the time of our review, Fire Department management provided us with an inventory listing of City vehicles managed by their department. This list included a total of 79 vehicles and pieces of equipment currently in service including 17 vehicles that had been assigned to employees with commuting privileges. Various tests of the 79 vehicles being managed, used and accounted for by the Fire Department and reviews of related operations disclosed the following: 1. Policies and procedures relating to the management and oversight of the Fire Departments vehicle fleet were not documented. 2. The Fire Department provided us with a copy of an internal Hartford Fire Department Assigned Vehicles Usage Policy. While Fire Department management informed that that they were using and enforcing this policy, it does not include many key requirements detailed in the Citys unofficial COH Vehicle Use Policy. In light of this, we recommend that Fire Department management use the Citys policy for these matters, once it is implemented, with the exception for any more restrictive internal requirements deemed necessary by Fire Department management. 3. Fire Department management informed us that they perform reviews to determine the propriety and reasonableness of the mileage and gasoline usage for vehicles assigned to employees with commuter privileges. The related procedures were not documented however. 4. Although Fire Department management informed us that they perform periodic reviews of all Fire Department vehicles to verify the ongoing need of each vehicle in the fleet, related procedures were not documented. We noted that the Fire Department listing included six vehicles identified as spare. In addition, there were seven vehicles on the inventory listing noted as Removed from Service including four fire apparatus. Fire Department management informed us that vehicles listed as spare are assigned to the Equipment Maintenance Division and are not extra equipment because they used by various Fire Department divisions during repairs or maintenance of assigned vehicles. Fire Department management also informed us that vehicles listed as removed from service will remain on the list and are not use for fire suppression but are used for driver training to cut down on wear and tear of front line apparatus. The process and procedures for performing these reviews should be documented including any actions taken as a result to reassign or sell vehicles as deemed appropriate.

12

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit

5. As noted above, Fire Department management informed us at the time of our review that 17 vehicles were assigned to employees with commuting privileges. The original list of 51 vehicles assigned to employees with commuting privileges that we originally received from the Administration included only three Fire Department vehicles. Fire Department management informed us that at least seven of the 14 vehicle variance between these two reports related to Fire Marshall Office and other Division employees that were not on the list of 51 vehicles because their respective commuting privileges were generally granted on a part-time basis when they were on call. This would be an instance where pooled rather than separately assigned vehicles might be more efficient. It should be noted that according to the Mayo rs recent directive to reduce the number of vehicles assigned with commuting privileges the Fire Department was granted only four vehicles with these privileges. Again, this is an example as to why it is so difficult to accurately account for these vehicles without effective policies, procedures and controls in place. Fire Department management informed us that they now have approval for the use of only four (4) take home vehicles; these vehicles are the only authorized take home vehicles approved by the Chief Operating Officer. 6. Using ACL, we performed various analyses and comparisons of the vehicles recorded on the Fire Department vehicle inventory listing to related data on the Master Equipment list maintained by DPW ESD. We concentrated our efforts on passenger type vehicles including sedans, sport utility vehicles and vans. We found that the DPW ESD Master Equipment list contained 55 vehicles of this type compared to 53 vehicles of this type on the Fire Department vehicle inventory listing. Due to the different vehicle naming conventions, we were unable to readily reconcile the vehicles in these two databases. We then performed a similar analysis and comparison based on VINs and found that 17 VINs in the DPW ESD Master Equipment list did not agree with the VINs in the Fire Department vehicle inventory listing. A closer inspection of the VINs disclosed that many of them were incomplete/incorrect in one or the other database. DPW management informed us that they periodically provide DPW ESD with updated lists of the vehicles under their management, however, we noted that this was done sporadically. We provided DPW ESD management with the details of our test results for follow-up and resolution. Again, this is an example of the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of manually maintaining multiple databases with essentially the same information in two separate departments. If management deems it necessary and appropriate to continue to maintain these two databases, we recommend that HPD management periodically reconcile the information in their database with the information being maintained in the DPW ESD Master Equipment list. Any variances identified during this process should be follow-up and resolved. We recommend that Fire Department management develop document and implement the policies, procedures, and controls noted above. We also recommend that Fire Department management follow-up on and resolve the variances and other issues identified relating to the Fire Department vehicle inventory listing above. Management Action Plan Completion Date: December 31, 2013 Responsible Persons: C. Huertas, Acting Chief, Fire Department The Fire Department has started the process of documenting all required policies and procedures. We will follow the City of Harford Vehicle Usage Policy as appropriate as this will supersede the Fire Department policy. The Department will document the fuel usage and mileage of all commuter vehicles by using the Citys FuelMaster Plus Data Program. Finally, the Fire Department will work with the Department of Public Works to ensure the Vehicle Master List has proper information of the entire Fire Departments Vehicle Identification Numbers, make and body style.
13

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit

Department of Health and Human Services According to the DPW ESD Master Equipment list, there are currently 41 vehicles assigned to the Department of Health and Human Services. According to the Mayors September 13, 2013 directive on take home vehicles, the Department of Health and Human Services has only one vehicle assigned to an employee with commuting privileges. Various tests of these 41 vehicles and reviews of related operations disclosed the following: 1. Department of Health and Human Services management informed us that the DPW ESD Master Equipment list is incorrect and they actually have only 26 vehicles. HHS management also provided us with an updated list of their vehicles. We recommend that HHS management work with DPW ESD management to make sure that only those vehicles under the responsibility of HHS are recorded as such in the DPW ESD Master Equipment list in the future. Periodic reconciliations of information in the two databases should be performed to make sure there are no errors, omissions or other potential issues. 2. Department of Health and Human Services management (HHS) does not have procedures for periodically performing reviews to determine the propriety and reasonableness of the mileage and gasoline usage for vehicles assigned to employees with and without commuter privileges. These reviews should be performed periodically. In addition, the results of these reviews and related procedures should be documented. 3. There were no procedures for performing periodic reviews of all HHS vehicles to verify the ongoing need of each vehicle in the fleet. This could be done by analyzing the mileage, gas use and other applicable factors for each vehicle. Based on these analyses, management can then determine if it might be more cost effective to either eliminate vehicles or utilize a vehicle pool as deemed appropriate. HHS management informed us that after the start of our review they ordered a mileage analysis from DPW ESD for all of their vehicles and are in the process of analyzing this data. They also informed us that they are in the process of negotiating for the installation and use of GPS for their vehicles with Metro Hartford Information Services and DPW. We recommend that HHS management work with DPW ESD management to perform periodic reviews to determine the propriety and reasonableness of vehicle mileage and gas usage and verify the ongoing need for each vehicle assigned to HHS. Based on these analyses, we also recommend that HHS management work with DPW ESD management to determine if it might be more cost effective to eliminate a number of these vehicles and establish and utilize a centralized pool of vehicles. Related procedures should be documented. Management Action Plan Completion Date: December 31, 2013 Responsible Persons: R. Pino, Director, Department of Health and Human Services We agree with the recommendations noted above and will take action to develop, document and implement procedures as noted.

14

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit

Department of Development Services According to the DPW ESD Master Equipment list, there are currently 37 vehicles assigned to the Department of Development Services Licenses and Inspection Division. According to the Mayors September 13, 2013 directive on take home vehicles, the Department of Deve lopment Services has only two vehicles assigned to employees with commuting privileges. Various tests of these 37 vehicles and reviews of related operations disclosed the following: 1. Department of Development Services Licenses and Inspection Division (DDS/L&I) management informed us that the DPW ESD Master Equipment list is incorrect and they actually have only 33 vehicles. DDS/L&I management also provided us with an updated list of their vehicles. We recommend that DDS/L&I management work with DPW ESD management to make sure that only those vehicles under the responsibility of DDS/L&I are recorded as such in the DPW ESD Master Equipment list in the future. Periodic reconciliations of information in the two databases should be performed to make sure there are no errors, omissions or other potential issues. 2. DDS/L&I management informed us that they track vehicle mileage monthly. They do not review gas usage because they feel that this is often unpredictable. We noted that procedures for tracking vehicle mileage monthly and related results and follow-up are not documented. We believe that it would be beneficial to track both mileage and gas usage. These reviews should also be performed for vehicles with and without commuting privileges. In addition, the results of these reviews and related procedures should be documented. 3. Procedures for performing periodic reviews of all DDS/L&I vehicles to verify the ongoing need of each vehicle in the fleet were not documented. DDS/L&I management informed us that have performed these reviews in the past and have established a pool of seven vehicles for use by DDS/L&I employees. DDS/L&I management also informed us that it may be tough to reduce the fleet any more than they currently have. We recommend that DDS/L&I management develop and document procedures for periodically performing reviews to determine the propriety and reasonableness of vehicle mileage and gas usage verify the ongoing need for each vehicle assigned to DDS/L&I. Based on these analyses, we also recommend that DDS/L&I management work with DPW ESD management to determine if additional vehicles can either be eliminated or the centralized pool of vehicles can be expanded. Management Action Plan Completion Date: December 31, 2013 Responsible Persons: T. Deller, Director, Department of Development Services, D. Loos, Director, Licenses & Inspections Division We agree with the recommendations noted above and will take action to develop, document and implement procedures as noted.

15

City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit

Distribution: City Council Members Internal Audit Commission Members K. Chapman, Interim Director, Department of Public Works A. Cloud, City Treasurer T. Deller, Director, Department of Development Services J. Figueroa, Acting Chief of Staff, Mayors Office C. Huertas, Acting Chief, Fire Department A. Ilg, Interim Chief Operating Officer J. Mazzuoccolo, McGladrey & Pullen, LLP R. Pino, Director, Department of Health and Human Services J. Rovella, Chief, Police Department J. Ruffo, Interim Director, Finance Department J. Sanchez, Director, Management and Budget P. Segarra, Mayor

Audit Team: P. Campbell J. Garvis D. Sinclair

16