As reflected in Table III, it took DPW up to four or more years after receiving some tickets to enter them into TIMS. The Auditor's analysis further indicated that 37,497 mail adjudication ticket requests were not entered into TIMS for more than 6 months after they were received by DPW. This lapse in performance created the risk that the collection of revenue associated with these tickets would be unnecessarily delayed or completely denied. Further, delays in entering mail adjudication requests into TIMS may have distorted the number of valid mail adjudication requests received during a given period of time.

Delays in entering mail adjudication requests, and corresponding delays in suspending such tickets from delinquent collection activity until adjudicated, may have resulted in a mistaken determination that these tickets were eligible for delinquent collection activity by Lockheed, the District's delinquent parking ticket collection contractor. This mistaken determination may have resulted in the issuance of delinquent collection notices by Lockheed and its subsequent collection of a fee from payments made on these particular tickets.

The Auditor's analysis of the 207,678 mail adjudication requests further revealed the presence of tickets containing issue dates as far back as 1980. Approximately 7,789⁸ of the 207,678 ticket records reviewed by the Auditor contained issue dates between January 1980 and December 1994. These tickets appeared to have been submitted for mail adjudication during calendar years 1996 and 1997. Tickets such as these raise the following two concerns, among others: (1) whether the ticket information database contains only current valid data; and (2) whether the mail adjudication process was misused by some motorists to further delay payment on delinquent tickets or obtain a favorable adjudication on a delinquent ticket that was not eligible for adjudication through the in-person administrative hearing process.

Additionally within the 207,678 tickets, the Auditor found approximately 2,560 tickets submitted for mail adjudication that were also classified as delinquent and assigned to Lockheed for delinquent collection activity. Lockheed collected a fee from each payment made on these tickets. The Auditor's analysis indicated that resources from both the mail adjudication process and the delinquent ticket collection process were unnecessarily devoted to these tickets. The duplication of effort invested in these tickets represented an inefficient and uneconomical use of District government resources.

Back to top of page

Mail Adjudication Process Developed A Backlog of 30,931 Unadjudicated Parking Tickets As A Result of Inadequate Staffing and Ineffective Management

As of March 1, 1998, the mail adjudication process had developed a backlog of approximately 30,931 contested parking tickets submitted during calendar years 1996 and 1997. According to information provided by TSA, the backlog was primarily due to insufficient resources. TSA further noted that a secondary cause of the backlog was an increase in the volume of contested tickets.

According to information reviewed by the Auditor, DPW assigned only one employee to perform mail adjudications during 1996 and 1997 after an employee quit and another employee was promoted to hearing examiner. DPW officials asserted that they recognized the need to provide additional resources to the mail adjudication process but were unable to do so because of budget constraints and the elimination of positions. DPW stated that: "Within limited resources, priority has been placed on scheduled hearings which impact on public safety, including moving infractions, permit related infractions, and vehicle insurance infractions." Further, DPW noted that "it would not be acceptable from a customer service standpoint to make walk-in customers wait longer in order to reduce a mail adjudication backlog." Notwithstanding, the Auditor notes that mail adjudication requests also may have impacted public safety and the District's revenue collection opportunities. Therefore, mail adjudication should also have been a priority for DPW officials.. If adequate resources could not be allocated to the mail adjudication process to ensure its timely, effective, and efficient operation, management should have considered limiting mail adjudication to individuals who showed good cause for not being able to schedule and attend a hearing personally or through a representative, or management should have eliminated the mail adjudication process entirely until a more efficient and effective process could be developed and implemented.

For the two-year period between January 1996 and December 1997, and prior years, the Department of Public Works operated an aggressive parking enforcement program under which all parking control aides were required to issue a pre-established number of 90 parking violation tickets per day. The 90 ticket per day performance measure, or quota, resulted in a barrage of contested parking violation tickets that were appealed to the Bureau of Traffic Adjudication. However, the Bureau of Traffic Adjudication appeared to have been inadequately staffed to effectively and efficiently handle the volume of contested parking tickets for which individuals requested administrative hearings on a daily basis. Individuals who came to the Bureau of Traffic Adjudication to schedule and attend an administrative hearing, more often than not, endured long lines and long waits before their cases were heard by a hearing examiner or the chief hearing examiner. The mail adjudication process was implemented by DPW, in part, to provide motorists a more convenient alternative to in-person administrative hearings. However, inadequate staffing of the mail adjudication process led to a backlog of unadjudicated parking tickets.

The Auditor's examination further revealed that the District's parking enforcement and ticket adjudication systems failed to operate in tandem from a logistical perspective. In other words, human resources were not allocated effectively or efficiently to ensure that the impact of the Bureau of Parking Services' 90 ticket per day quota would not adversely impact the ability of Bureau of Traffic Adjudication (BTA) hearing examiners to effectively and efficiently handle, on a daily basis, parking tickets presented for administrative hearings and mail adjudication. For example, it appears that TSA did not conduct periodic studies or analyses of the number of tickets issued by parking control aides and the number or percentage of those tickets appealed to the BTA. Periodic evaluation of such data should have enabled TSA to determine whether sufficient human and related resources were allocated to the Bureau of Traffic Adjudication in order to effectively and efficiently handle the flow of cases through the administrative hearing and mail adjudication processes. In response, TSA could have reallocated resources to successfully meet work demands placed on the adjudication process. The effect of insufficient human resources coupled with the ineffective allocation of resources resulted in an inefficient traffic adjudication service delivery system and widespread customer dissatisfaction.

Back to top of page

Mail Adjudication Respondents Were Not Required to Show Good Cause for Not Scheduling and Attending a Hearing Personally or Through a Representative

It appears that DPW's acceptance of all tickets submitted for mail adjudication violated Title 18 DCMR Chapter 30, in that respondents were not required to show good cause for not scheduling and attending a hearing (personally or through a representative) as required by Title 18 DCMR 3021, which states:

"In cases where a respondent shows good cause for not scheduling and attending a hearing (personally or through a representative), the Director or his designee may permit the matter to be adjudicated by mail."

According to the Auditor's analysis, DPW failed to limit mail adjudication to only those cases in which a respondent showed "good cause for not scheduling and attending a hearing (personally or through a representative)" as required by Title 18 DCMR 3021. In other words, by not limiting the kinds of cases that were eligible for mail adjudication and establishing criteria necessary for a motorist to show good cause, DPW made the mail adjudication process available to all individuals contesting a parking ticket.

Back to top of page

Regulations Governing Mail Adjudication May be Defective

In comments submitted to the Auditor, DPW rejected the position that the mail adjudication regulation required a respondent to show good cause, and indicated that "there may be a conflict with 18 DCMR 3021 " end the traffic Adjudication Act because only the regulation required a respondent to show "good cause." The Auditor noted that DPW promulgated the regulation in question. If the regulation is inconsistent or in conflict with other regulations and the Traffic Adjudication Act, then DPW should immediately correct the deficiency.

The Auditor further noted that the mail adjudication regulations were silent as to:

1. the criteria that qualifies a ticket for mail adjudication; and

2. the policy and procedure applicable to tickets submitted for adjudication more than 15 calendar days after the ticket's issue date.

Additionally, the regulations are silent as to the specific types of violations that may be submitted for mail adjudication, e.g. red meter, no parking/standing anytime. In other words, there is presently no limitation on the type of infractions that may be submitted for mail adjudication.

Finally, the regulations do not address the time period within which respondents must submit tickets for mail adjudication. In reviewing the regulations regarding mail adjudication, the Auditor was unable to find any calendar day period within which an individual must respond to a ticket as prescribed by the Traffic Adjudication Act.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. TSA adhere to the regulations in Title 18 DCMR Chapter 30 by requiring respondents to show good cause for not scheduling a hearing in-person or through a representative as a prerequisite for permitting mail adjudication. If the regulation improperly requires a respondent to show good cause and is in conflict with the Traffic Adjudication Act, DPW should immediately correct the deficiency.
2. DPW, or its successor, properly staff and equip the mail adjudication process to ensure that it functions efficiently and effectively and decisions are timely rendered to prevent the loss of ticket revenue.
3. DPW, or its successor, immediately eliminate the backlog in the mail adjudication process.
4. DPW, or its successor, establish a policy and the appropriate procedure to preclude the acceptance of tickets submitted for mail adjudication more than 15 calendar days after a ticket is issued. Further, regulations pertaining to mail adjudication should clearly indicate that tickets must be submitted for mail adjudication within 15 calendar days of the ticket's issue date.

Back to top of page

THE TSA ADMINISTRATOR ESTABLISHED AN UNAUTHORIZED. PROCEDURALLY FLAWED PRACTICE OF DISPOSING OF PARKING TICKETS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD IN CIRCUMVENTION OF ESTABLISHED ADJUDICATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

The Auditor's review of adjudicatory activity within the Bureau of Traffic Adjudication revealed that the TSA administrator, who is responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of bureaus under TSA's organizational umbrella, had established an unauthorized, procedurally flawed practice of deciding parking tickets off the public record. Most of the tickets disposed of through this practice were not supported by evidence. Further, the TSA administrator's decisions failed to comply with the requirements of the District's Administrative Procedures Act. The District's Administrative Procedures Act requires, among other things, that decisions be supported by a public record and rendered consistent with established policies and procedures. A legal opinion issued by the Office the Corporation Counsel, dated July 27, l 998, states in relevant part the following:

"The TSA Administrator is required to follow all procedures governing administrative decision making set forth in Chapters l 0 and 30 of DCMR Title 18 and the contested case provision of the District of Columbia Administrative Procedures Act, codified at D.C. Code Section 1509 [sic] (1992 Repl.). In addition, the United States Supreme Court and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals have issued numerous decisions that discuss the standard for administrative decisions. Generally speaking, an administrative adjudication will be sustained on appeal so long as it is not arbitrary or capricious, contrary to the Constitution, in excess of the agency's jurisdiction, made contrary to statutory or regulatory procedures, or unsupported by substantial evidence on the record. See DCAPA Section 162(a)(3), D.C. Code Section 1-1510 (a)(3)."

Further, the Auditor found that the administrator's decisions failed to comply with DCMR Title 18, Section 3011.1 entitled, "Hearing Procedures," which states that:

"Each hearing will be held before a hearing examiner or the Chief Hearing Officer. No other person has the authority to adjudicate a traffic infraction or to dismiss a notice that has been returned to the Bureau."

In initial comments to this report, the former director of the Department of Public Works contended that the TSA administrator was delegated authority to adjudicate parking violation tickets through oral and written directives. In a sample of 391 tickets decided by the TSA administrator, the Auditor found only one instance in which the DPW director provided a written directive on correspondence requesting the dismissal of a parking ticket. (See Attachment I for the only example of the director's written directive encountered during this audit.) From a management control perspective, a single written directive to the TSA administrator should not have been construed as a broad delegation of adjudicatory authority.

DPW's comments also indicated that the director orally delegated adjudicatory authority to the TSA administrator The Auditor notes, however, that oral delegations are not a desirable way in which to delegate adjudicatory authority. Oral directives, by their very nature, may give rise to misunderstanding, disagreement, and error. Further, oral directives cannot be properly substantiated, and often undermine essential internal management, accounting, and administrative control objectives.

Finally, the director contended that the TSA administrator was delegated authority to adjudicate parking tickets in a position description which stated, in relevant part, that the TSA administrator is responsible for "...collection of traffic fines and adjudication of disputes regarding traffic movements and parking in the public right-of-way..." (See Attachment II for a full copy of the position description.) In a July 27, 1998 legal opinion, the Office Corporation Counsel stated, in relevant part, the following:

"Assuming that a Director of the Department of Public Works executed this document or authorized its issuance, the attached document delegates the Director's authority to adjudicate motor vehicle offenses. The delegation is found in that portion of the first paragraph which indicates that the Administrator's responsibilities "include... implementation of regulations governing...adjudication of disputes regarding traffic movement and parking in the public right of way....Although "implementation of regulations" is a broad phrase, it appears to include the responsibility to adjudicate minor traffic offenses."

It does not appear that the intent of the position description was to require or authorize the administrator to personally collect traffic fines and personally adjudicate disputes regarding traffic movement. Rather, the intent of the position description was to confer the responsibility and authority to manage these functions. Further, the position description provided for the Auditor's review did not contain any documentation indicating that a director of the Department of Public Works had executed or authorized the issuance of the position description. Therefore, it is uncertain whether the document is a valid position description which contains a valid delegation of adjudicatory authority. The language in the position description is vague and, from a management control perspective, is not a desirable way in which to delegate authority to adjudicate parking and certain moving violation tickets. By comparison, the Mayor of the District of Columbia delegates authority by Mayor's Order. These orders identify the source of authority delegated, specifically identifies the official to whom the delegation is made, clearly articulates the limits of authority delegated, and the duration, if appropriate, of the delegation. Nevertheless, if the position description submitted for the Auditor's review is conclusively determined to be a valid delegation of adjudicatory authority, it did not authorize the TSA administrator to establish a separate, procedurally flawed practice of disposing of only particular contested parking violation cases off the public record.

Back to top of page

The TSA Administrator Improperly Dismissed Fines and Penalties for Approximately 391 Parking Tickets Reviewed by the Auditor

For calendar years 1996 and 1997, the Auditor reviewed approximately 391 dismissals of parking ticket fines and penalties that were authorized by the TSA administrator. The 391 dismissals were based upon written requests sent directly to the TSA administrator or forwarded through the Office of the DPW director involving vehicles registered to private citizens, vehicles owned or leased by the District and Federal governments, and vehicles owned by some District officials.. The TSA administrator disposed of these tickets outside of the administrative and mail adjudication processes. In disposing of these tickets, the TSA administrator failed to comply with traffic adjudication policies and procedures or prepare a public record to support the ordered actions, and permitted the dispositions to be improperly attributed to a former employee.

According to traffic adjudication regulations, requests for parking ticket dismissals should have been forwarded to the Bureau of Traffic Adjudication for review and adjudication by a hearing examiner, the chief hearing examiner, or the mail adjudicator in the manner established by law and regulation. This did not occur with tickets, in the Auditor's sample, that were handled by the TSA administrator.

The Auditor found that records related to the TSA administrator's dismissals were kept in several different locations within TSA. Therefore, the Auditor could not determine the precise magnitude of the TSA administrator's adjudicatory activity. The Auditor found that a majority of the tickets decided by the TSA administrator were maintained by the supervisor of the Ticket Processing Unit within the Bureau of Traffic Adjudication. The Ticket Processing Unit provided information to the public on parking tickets and booted and towed vehicles, and its staff reviewed hearing documents for payment only. It had no official responsibilities related to the adjudication of parking tickets.

The Auditor also identified additional records related to ticket dismissal requests sent directly to the TSA administrator in a correspondence log that was maintained in the administrator's office. Again, because these records were maintained in various locations, there was no assurance that all records related to the administrator's dismissal of parking tickets were made available for the audit.

In dismissing parking ticket fines and penalties, the TSA administrator noted her decision directly on the dismissal request letter and forwarded the correspondence to the supervisor of the Ticket Processing Unit for entry of the decision into TIMS. Table IV summarizes the 391 tickets in the Auditor's sample that were improperly dismissed by the TSA administrator during 1996 and 1997.

TABLE IV

Tickets Dismissed by TSA Administrator: Calendar Years 1996 and 1997

Source: Office of the District of Columbia Auditor

The 391 tickets dismissed by the TSA administrator were issued for a variety of violations including: (1) no parking anytime, (2) no standing anytime, (3) red (expired) meter, (4) no stopping/standing AM-PM rush hour, (5) no stopping standing bus stop/zone, (6) restricted space, (7) failure to display inspection sticker, (8) disobeying traffic sign, (9) parking on public/private property, and ( 10) vehicle tag and registration violations. (See Attachment III for samples of ticket dismissals approved by the TSA administrator.)

The TSA administrator's dismissals were improper for the following reasons:

1. the dismissals circumvented established policies and procedures requiring a person to appear at the Bureau of Traffic Adjudication to schedule and attend a hearing personally or through a representative, or submit the ticket within the allotted 1 5-day period by mail to the Bureau of Traffic Adjudication for mail adjudication;
2. the TSA administrator failed to consistently require sufficient, creditable evidence to support the denial of a violation;
3. the dismissals permitted some individuals to benefit from a procedurally flawed and irregular method of disposing of parking violation tickets while the general public was required to follow established Bureau of Traffic Adjudication policies and procedures; and
4. the dismissals created a lack of uniformity and inequity in the parking ticket adjudication process.

The TSA administrator, in discussions with the Auditor, indicated that her adjudication of parking tickets was, in some cases, to minimize embarrassing situations from developing which would reflect negatively on DPW. In other cases, the TSA administrator extended a courtesy to certain individuals. The Traffic Adjudication Act did not provide the TSA administrator with the discretion to minimize embarrassing situations or extend courtesies to certain individuals. In either case, the TSA administrator lacked the requisite legal authority to administer the Traffic Adjudication Act in a manner that created a lack of uniformity and inequity in the ticket adjudication process.

Back to top of page

The TSA Administrator's Dismissal of Certain Parking Tickets Violated Mayor's Memorandum 9142

Some parking ticket dismissals authorized by the TSA administrator violated provisions of Mayor's Memorandum 91-42 (Memorandum) entitled, "Adjudication of Parking Tickets Incurred During Government Service," dated October 25, 1991. Mayor's Memorandum 91-42 provides guidelines concerning liability for tickets issued to District government registered vehicles operated by government officials and employees while performing official business. The Memorandum specifically states:

"Government Employees. District and Federal vehicles may be excused from parking infractions if committed during the course of urgent government business if no other legal spaces were available so long as the parking violation did not block traffic or cause a safety problem. However, the defense of being a government employee on urgent business will not excuse the following violations:

• no parking/standing anytime
• rush hour lane
• crosswalk
• bus stop or zone
• sidewalk
• blocking a driveway or an alley"

The TSA administrator's parking ticket dismissals that violated Mayor's Memorandum 91-42 are presented in Table V.

TABLE V

Dismissals That Violated Mayor's Memorandum 91-42: Calendar Years 1996 and 1997

Source: Office of the District of Columbia Auditor

Within the sample of tickets reviewed for this audit, the Auditor found that the TSA administrator dismissed four (4) tickets issued to a government vehicle assigned to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Two of the four dismissals were for no parking anytime violations, a third was for a rush hour lane violation, and a fourth was for a bus stop/zone violation. In authorizing the dismissal of these tickets, the TSA administrator not only circumvented established adjudication policies and procedures, but also violated Mayor's Memorandum 91-42. The defense of being a government employee on urgent business did not excuse the particular violations assessed against the vehicle assigned to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. The government vehicle assigned to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer also had accumulated outstanding parking tickets totaling $560 and was designated boot eligible.

The Auditor also found that the TSA administrator dismissed parking tickets for no parking anytime violations issued to vehicles assigned to the District's Fire Chief, a former interim director of the Department of Administrative Services, and a staff member in the Mayor's Office of the Ombudsman. The TSA administrator approved two additional parking ticket dismissals for rush hour lane violations issued to an unidentified government vehicle, and to a District government vehicle assigned to a DPW administrator. Further, the TSA administrator dismissed a parking ticket for a bus stop/zone violation that was issued to a vehicle assigned to the District's former city administrator, and a no standing anytime violation that was issued to a vehicle assigned to the Mayor's former chief of staff.

Additionally, Mayor's Order 94-38 entitled, "Vehicle Utilization Policy," dated February l 8, l 994, Section VI(G) specified that agency heads are responsible for:

"Establishing agency procedures for handling parking tickets issued to agency employees. All employees must be made aware of their responsibility to respond to parking tickets issued to government vehicles assigned to them."

In submitting tickets directly to the TSA administrator for dismissal, District officials did not comply with the policy presented in Mayor's Order 94-38.

As noted in Table IV, the TSA administrator improperly dismissed a total of 59 tickets, in the Auditor's sample, that were issued to vehicles leased or registered to the District government. The audit team noted that 16, or 27 percent, of the 59 improperly dismissed parking tickets involved vehicles assigned to former DPW directors. These dismissals included red meter violations¹⁰; disobeying official government signs, and vehicle inspection violations. Flagrant violation of District parking laws and regulations by District government officials and employees creates an unfavorable public perception of the District government and signals a lack of accountability and lack of integrity in complying with and administering District laws and regulations.

Back to top of page

The TSA Administrator's Dismissal of Parking Tickets for Some Elected Officials Was Not Authorized by Law

During calendar years 1996 and 1997, the TSA administrator approved the dismissal of 34 tickets issued to vehicles registered to some elected officials.. According to the TSA administrator, District elected officials were extended the same parking privileges in the District of Columbia that were accorded members of Congress pursuant to D.C. Code, Section 40-703(c). District of Columbia Code, Section 40- 703(c) states:

"Members of Congress may park their vehicles in any available curb space in the District of Columbia, when:

1. The vehicle is used by the member of Congress on official business;
2. The vehicle is displaying a Congressional registration tag issued by the jurisdiction represented by the member; and
3. The vehicle is not parked in violation of a loading zone, rush hour, firehouse, or fire plug limitation."

Congressional parking privileges that were extended to District of Columbia elected officials by the TSA administrator were not authorized or supported by law.

The TSA administrator's dismissal of parking tickets issued to private vehicles registered to elected officials included: (5) five no stopping/standing AM/PM rush hour violations; eight (8) disobeying official sign violations; three (3) bus stop/zone violations; seven (7) no parking/standing anytime violations; two (2) failure to display inspection sticker violations; eight (8) other violations¹¹; and one (1) violation that could not be determined.

The Auditor interviewed parking administration officials in the cities of Boston, Baltimore and Philadelphia concerning policies related to the disposition of parking tickets issued to elected officials in their jurisdictions. The discussions revealed that elected officials in these cities were not provided special or preferential treatment with regard to parking enforcement and adjudication of parking tickets. Parking officials in these cities stated that elected officials in their respective jurisdictions must adhere to established parking laws and adjudication policies and procedures.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The TSA administrator immediately discontinue the unauthorized practice of disposing of parking tickets off the public record and in violation of traffic adjudication policies and procedures. All future requests for dismissal of parking tickets should be referred to the chief hearing examiner in the Bureau of Traffic Adjudication for appropriate adjudicatory activity.
2. District government officials and employees comply with the provisions of Mayor's Memorandum 91-42 and Mayor's Order 94-38. Each agency must enforce employee accountability for violations of Mayor's Memorandum 91-42.

Back to top of page

THE TSA ADMINISTRATOR'S DISPOSITION OF PARKING TICKETS CREATED THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

In accordance with Sections l 800. 1, l 800.2, and 1803.1 of the District Personnel Manual (DPM), District government employees must adhere to the following:

"1800.1 Employees of the District government shall at all times maintain a high level of ethical conduct in connection with the performance of official duties, and shall refrain from taking, ordering, or participating in any official action which would adversely affect the confidence of the public in the integrity of the District government.

1800.2 The maintenance of unusually high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality, and conduct by employees is essential to assure the proper performance of government business and the maintenance of confidence by citizens in their government. The avoidance of misconduct and conflicts of interest on the part of employees is indispensable to the maintenance of these standards...

1803.1 An employee shall avoid action, whether or not specifically prohibited by this chapter, which might result in, or create the appearance of, the following:

1. Using public office for private gain;
2. Giving preferential treatment to any person;
3. Impeding government efficiency or economy;
4. Losing complete independence or impartiality;
5. Making a government decision outside official channels; or
6. Affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of government."

The TSA administrator's disposition of parking tickets off the public record, at a minimum, created the appearance of a conflict of interest. The Auditor further noted that the TSA administrator's direct involvement in the disposition of parking tickets appeared to have been in conflict with 1800.1, 1800.2, and 1803.1 of the DPM in that: (1 ) preferential treatment was extended to certain individuals; (2) these actions affected the TSA administrator's impartiality; (3) the TSA administrator's decisions were made outside official channels; and (4) if these actions were publicized, they may have adversely affected the public's confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the District government's parking adjudication process.

The Auditor further noted that the TSA administrator did not properly separate the administrative responsibilities necessary to manage the Transportation Systems Administration's day-to-day operations from the specific function of adjudicating parking tickets. The TSA administrator's deliberate circumvention of internal controls established to govern and protect the adjudicatory function compromised the integrity and impartiality of the entire adjudicatory process. An internal control breach in the adjudication of parking tickets, whether limited or widespread, fosters the perception that some individuals with influence or access to District officials may receive favorable treatment on such matters.

RECOMMENDATION

The TSA administrator adhere to the ethical conduct provisions of the District Personnel Manual (DPM) in order to enhance and protect the integrity of the District of Columbia Government.

Back to top of page

TICKET DISPOSITIONS WERE IMPROPERLY ATTRIBUTED TO A FORMER CHIEF HEARING EXAMINER'S HEARING OFFICER CODE

During calendar years 1996 and 1997, approximately 38,650¹² parking tickets were adjudicated and a disposition was entered into the Ticket Information Management System (TIMS) using a hearing officer code assigned to the former chief hearing examiner of the Bureau of Traffic Adjudication (BTA). This individual left the BTA on October 20, 1995. Nevertheless, the supervisor of TSA's Ticket Processing Unit, and at least nine (9) other TSA employees, improperly entered parking ticket dispositions into TIMS using the former chief hearing examiner's hearing officer code over an approximate 26 month period subsequent to this former employee's departure from BTA. Table VI summarizes the disposition categories for the 38,650 tickets that were entered into TIMS using the former chief hearing examiner's hearing officer code.

TABLE VI

Ticket Dispositions Improperly Attributed to the Former Chief Hearing Examiner of the Bureau of Traffic Adjudication: Calendar Years 1996 and 1997

Source: Lockheed Disposition Analysis Report dated January 29,1998.

According to information provided by TSA, employees were assigned "unique user ID codes" that were protected by a password selected by the employee. This combination allowed access into TIMS. In addition to the unique user ID codes and password, hearing examiners were assigned two (2)- hearing officer codes to enable them to enter dispositions for in-person hearings and mail adjudication hearings. In addition to the unique user ID codes, TSA officials indicated the following with regard to hearing officer codes:

"...hearing officer codes function as an identifier, so that staff can determine which hearing officer was responsible for the finding of liability or dismissal on a ticket. They do not carry any security or access privileges or restrictions."

The Auditor requested TSA's policies, procedures, guidelines, or rules governing DPW's assignment of TIMS access codes and hearing officer codes. TSA provided some documentation on TIMS access codes and hearing officer codes and further noted that:

"The use of separate HO [Hearing Officer] codes for in-person and mail hearings facilitates reporting, such as the weekly Disposition Report, which lists all dispositions entered by hearing officer code. The hearing officer code is used solely as an identifier in TIMS."

As a result of TSA employees' misuse of the former chief hearing examiner's hearing officer code, the Auditor could not readily determine the identity of the hearing examiner or other TSA employees responsible for the 38,650 ticket dispositions. TSA officials indicated that 28,881 of the 38,650 tickets were associated with batch dispositions in connection with an "amnesty program" that was established to resolve a backlog of unpaid default tickets. Despite this assertion, the fact remains that these dispositions were improperly attributed to, but were not made by, the former chief hearing examiner for the Bureau of Traffic Adjudication. The remaining 9,769 tickets were direct on-line dispositions that could not be attributed to a specific hearing examiner because TSA employees entered dispositions by misusing the former chief hearing examiner's hearing officer code.

The Auditor discussed the use of the former chief hearing examiner's hearing officer code with the TSA administrator. The administrator indicated that she was unaware of the continued use of the former chief hearing examiner's hearing officer code by employees under her supervision. Subsequently, the Auditor interviewed the Ticket Processing Unit supervisor who improperly used the former chief hearing examiner's hearing officer code to enter ticket dispositions ordered by the TSA administrator. The Ticket Processing Unit supervisor indicated that she used the former chief hearing examiner's hearing officer code to distinguish parking ticket dismissals ordered by the TSA administrator from dispositions authorized by hearing examiners through the formal adjudication process.

The Auditor noted that the TSA administrator was also assigned two hearing officer codes. However, the TSA administrator's hearing officer codes were not used by the Ticket Processing Unit supervisor or any other TSA employee to identify ticket dispositions in the Auditor's sample that were ordered by the TSA administrator. Instead, these dispositions were attributed to the former chief hearing examiner's he hearing officer code which created the false impression that the former chief hearing examiner, rather than the TSA administrator, had ordered certain ticket dispositions. The Auditor is concerned by the misuse of the former chief hearing examiner's hearing officer code to enter the TSA administrator's parking ticket dispositions into TIMS given the assertion that these dismissals were legitimate.

Improperly attributing parking ticket dispositions to the hearing officer code assigned to the former chief hearing examiner, long after the individual's departure, prevented the accurate reporting of dispositions for each hearing examiner. It also impeded TSA officials' ability to accurately track, control, and measure the adjudicatory performance and activity of each BTA hearing examiner.

Further, this internal control deficiency may have adversely impacted TSA's ability to detect and trace possible adjudication irregularities committed by hearing examiners and other TSA employees.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. DPW immediately cease using hearing officer codes assigned to former employees, update its hearing officer codes, and implement appropriate guidelines governing the assignment, use, and cancellation of hearing officer codes.
2. DPW, or its successor, initiate the appropriate personnel action against any employee who improperly uses a TIMS hearing officer or access code not assigned to them.

Back to top of page

BUREAU OF PARKING SERVICES FAILED TO DETERMINE THE REASONS FOR VOIDED PARKING TICKETS AND IMPLEMENT APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

According to TSA's Bureau of Parking Services, a voided ticket represented a ticket that was not issued in accordance with parking regulations set forth in Title 18 DCMR Chapter 30. During the examination of voided tickets, the audit team found that DPW's Bureau of Parking Services failed to determine the reasons for voided tickets and implement appropriate corrective actions. Determining the reasons for voided tickets would have alerted management to performance deficiencies, weaknesses in its operating structure, the need for additional training to improve the performance of Parking Control Aides (PCA), and any other issues affecting the efficient and effective performance of this function.

The Auditor tested a sample of 272 voided tickets in the TIMS to determine: ( 1 ) the reasons that tickets were voided; and (2) if the tickets were voided consistent with TSA's guidelines for voiding tickets. Table VII presents the reasons for the voided tickets in the Auditor's sample.

TABLE VII

Reasons for Voided Tickets In the Auditor's Sample: Calendar Years 1996 And 1997