Date: October 17, 2013 To: Shawn T. Wooden, President, Court of Common Council From: H. Patrick Campbell, Chief Auditor Tele: 860.757.9951
P
City of Hartford Vehicle Inventory, Assignment and Use Audit Report 1405
 
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
ment’s 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
2
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 docum
ented 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
3
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
Mayor’s Office provided us with
a detailed list of City vehicles assigned to employees with commuting privileges which included 51 vehicles assigned to
the Mayor’s 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 Mayor’s 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 Mayor’s 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.
View on Scribd