2individuals who worked for the District as security officers and for the City as police officers.For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, these individuals were paid a total of $185,921 by theDistrict for security services. We selected four of the highest-paid individuals for further review.District payments to these four individuals ranged from $12,753 to $58,694 and totaled$110,367. We obtained supporting cash disbursement vouchers at the District for these four Citypolice officers documenting the hours they performed security services at the District during theperiod July 1, 2009
to August 2010. We then compared the hours worked, as shown on theDistrict vouchers, to the hours worked, as listed on City payroll overtime records. We performedthis review of City records to determine whether officers were paid by the City and District forthe same hours worked. For the above time period, we also reviewed police overtime records andsuch other documents that we found necessary to determine whether these four police officerswere submitting claims for overlapping hours worked at the City and the District.
Based on our review of payroll records at the City and our audit work at the District, weidentified 16 instances, totaling 57 hours, in which one police officer
submitted a claim forhours worked as a security guard that coincided with the hours he claimed for police overtime(See Appendix A). In essence, he claimed to be working at two places at the same time. Forexample, on September 8, 2009, District records indicate the individual submitted a claim forworking as a security guard from 6:30 am to 9:30 pm, a shift of 15 hours. On the same date, Cityrecords indicate that the individual claimed to work overtime hours from 4:00 pm to 11:00 pm asa police detective. City and District records document that he was working for both entitiessimultaneously from 4:00 pm to 9:30 pm, a period of 5.5 hours.We also identified an instance in which the hours claimed at the City and the hours claimed atthe District by this same individual resulted in an unlikely number of hours being worked withina 24- to 48-hour period. Starting on June 22, 2009, the individual claimed to work from 7:00 amto 9:30 pm at the District and from 11:00 pm to 7:00 am the following morning at the City. Hethen claimed to work from 7:00 am to 9:30 pm on June 23
at the District. Therefore, hesubmitted claims for having worked a total of 37 hours during a 38-½ hour period. The numberof hours claimed in this time frame seems highly unusual considering the type of work beingperformed (police and security services).Recordkeeping weaknesses at the City police department contributed to the payment of theseoverlapping hours by the City. The identified police officer, by virtue of his supervisory position,was allowed to authorize his own overtime. Also, City police department officials did notmaintain records to document the starting and ending times for shifts worked.
City officials should consider referring this matter to appropriate law enforcement authoritiesand take action to recover any inappropriate payments.
Payments made in July 2009 related to the period of service of June 2009.
This individual was paid approximately $26 an hour by the District and approximately $52 an hour (for overtime)by the City. He was paid a total of $58,694 by the District for the 2009-10 fiscal year.