Back to DC Auditor’s main page — Back to main body of audit
|
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
Agency CommentsOn May 26, 1998, the Interim District of Columbia Auditor submitted the first draft of this report for review and comment to the Director of the Department of Public Works and the Chief Management Officer of the District of Columbia. Comments were received from the Director of the Department of Public Works on June 10, 1998. The Auditor submitted the draft report to the Director of the Department of Public Works and the Chief Management Officer for further review and comment on September 1 1,1998. Comments were received from the Director of the Department of Public Works on September 22, 1998, and revised comments were received on September 25, 1998. The comments received from the Department of Public Works on June 10,1998, September 22,1998 and September 25,1998 are appended in their entirety to this report. Attachments submitted by DPW with its comments were too voluminous to include with the final report, but may be reviewed upon request in the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor. Back to top of page — Back to table of contents GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR June 10, 1998 Ms. Deborah K. Nichols Dear Ms. Nichols: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft audit report entitled "Evaluation of the Department of Public Works' Policies and Procedures for Adjudicating and Voiding Parking Tickets." The responses of the Department of Public Works (DPW) are outlined in this letter. Please note that the Transportation Systems Administration (TSA) is now commonly referred to as the Division of Motor Vehicles. However, during this audit period of 1996-97, TSA was the appropriate name and thus, is used in this response. The issues raised in the draft audit report focus on the need for consistency in adjudication processes and the need for updated policies, procedures, and guidelines. DPW concurs that policies, procedures, and guidelines should be systematically reviewed to ensure compliance with District laws, regulations, and current operations. Any audit recommendations which are undisputed will be considered in DPW's document review. The draft audit report raises a concern that the TSA Administrator dismissed certain tickets without requisite authority. The audit report cited a number of tickets which were dismissed on the recommendation of the TSA Administrator. There is a variety of reasons why the cited tickets were dismissed, some of which are detailed in this letter. The Office of the Administrator has taken an active role in attempting to resolve complaints and concerns originating from a number of sources, including the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Department of State, the Council of the District of Columbia, community organizations, other governmental agencies, and private citizens. As noted in the audit report, a majority of the tickets dismissed were on behalf of private citizens. Title 18 DCMR 3011.1 is cited to support your contention that only a hearing examiner or chief hearing examiner has authority to adjudicate a traffic infraction. However, you should note the Director of Public Works has express legal authority to make initial and final decisions on traffic infractions. The Director is also expressly empowered to handle a full range of adjudicatory matters as set forth in 18 DCMR 1007.2. The two regulations should be interpreted to avoid a conflict. Furthermore, when the regulations are read in tandem, DPW ensures the necessary flexibility for providing the highest level of customer service. The Director has delegated his authority to adjudicate traffic infractions to the TSA Administrator. This delegation has occurred through oral and written directives to respond to correspondence from the general public and various governmental entities requesting resolution of traffic adjudication complaints as well as complex and sensitive issues. In addition, the TSA Administrator's formal position description includes the following language: "...is responsible for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the District of Columbia. This responsibility includes...adjudication of disputes regarding traffic movements and parking in the public right-of-way...". (emphasis added). To maintain acceptable customer service during a period of overburdened resources and backlogs, all available avenues of due process have been followed to assist customers. In instances where complaints were forwarded or directed to the TSA Administrator for resolution, ticket records were researched and the basis for the complaints were investigated. Based on our investigation, letters and oral explanations provided sufficient information to make a final determination that almost one-third of the tickets handled by the TSA Administrator were deficient and improperly issued. To further clarify the TSA Administrator's authority, an administrative issuance will be disseminated. Pursuant to the "Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Emergency Act of 1998" (Bill 12-670) responsibility for ticket adjudication, however, will be transferred to the newly-created Department of Motor Vehicles. It is anticipated this transfer will occur on October 1, 1998. The manner in which ticket complaints will be handled in the new department will be addressed as part of the transition plan. The Department of Public Works offers the following comments with respect to other specific findings and recommendations: AUDIT RECOMMENDATION: The Transportation Systems Administration should 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 before permitting mail adjudication. DPW RESPONSE: The Council of the District of Columbia, through its enactment of the traffic adjudications laws, has provided the unequivocal statutory right for respondents to answer parking and moving violations by mail. D.C. Code sec. 40-615(b) states: "...a person to whom a notice of infraction [for a moving violation] has been issued may answer by personal appearance or by mail. Answers by telephone may be permitted by regulation." The same statutory right is provided for parking infractions in D.C. Code sec. 40-625tb). In addition, I refer you to 18 DCMR 3006 which also expressly authorizes answers to notices of infraction to be made via the mail. Although I have noted that 18 DCMR 3021 requires a respondent to "show good cause for not scheduling and attending a hearing...", this regulation appears to be in conflict with other regulations and the law. It is unclear whether section 3021 refers to the appeals process (since it immediately follows regulations governing appeals) or to moving violations only. Given the time constraints to respond to your draft audit report, DPW was unable to conduct a thorough review of the legislative (and regulatory) history governing answers by mail. I will request a legal opinion from the Office of the Corporation Counsel to clarify this issue. Until this matter is clarified at law, DPW maintains that the respondent should be given the flexibility to answer an infraction by mail since the overwhelming statutory and regulatory authority provides such right. Furthermore, in the interest of customer service, mail adjudication avoids the need for respondents to wait in-person for hearings. Unfortunately, several years ago, respondents waited 4-5 hours for hearings that are now adjudicated through the mail. Protracted waiting periods are not beneficial for the public nor the government. AUDIT RECOMMENDATION: TSA should immediately update and revise its mail adjudication procedures to reflect the current operating practices and publish these procedures in the District of Columbia Register. DPW RESPONSE: The publication of the Bureau of Adjudications' standard operating practices and procedures is inappropriate. Regulations governing mail adjudication may need to be published to ensure accurate public information on the mail adjudication process. As soon as DPW obtains the necessary guidance from the Office of the Corporation Counsel on a respondent's right to mail adjudication, the appropriate regulation will be promulgated. Nothwithstanding the ambiguity, public information materials related to the adjudication process are being updated, and it is anticipated that the revised materials will be available to the public shortly. The audit report stated that mail adjudication procedures have not been revised since 1987. These procedures were revised in September, 1997 and more recently in May, 1998. The updated procedures include revisions to the mail adjudication process. The audit report also noted that mail adjudication procedures had not been updated to "reflect changes made by TSA over two years ago that required all mail adjudication cases to be forwarded to Lockheed for entry into TIMS." This statement is unfounded since the process does not work in this manner. Perhaps the statement refers to the automated workflow process, which is addressed in the revised Procedures Manual dated May 1998. The automated workflow process commenced two or three years ago, in which mail adjudicators can enter decisions on- line as opposed to mail adjudication logs. AUDIT RECOMMENDATION: The TSA administrator should immediately discontinue the practice of dismissing parking tickets outside the formal adjudication process. All requests for dismissal of parking tickets must be referred to the Bureau of Adjudication for appropriate adjudicatory action by a hearing officer (sic), the chief hearing officer (sic), or the mail adjudicator in accordance with Title 18 DCMR Chapter 30. DPW RESPONSE: As previously stated, the authority for the TSA Administrator to adjudicate tickets has been delegated by the DPW Director. It should be noted that the TSA Administrator is a trained hearing examiner who formerly served in that capacity. The TSA Administrator is charged with the responsibility to the traffic infractions are adjudicated in a fair and reasonable manner. The TSA Administrator should be able to exercise flexibility and discretion as long as sound judgment is used and the public interest is served. The TSA Administrator exercised sound judgment while serving the public interest by dismissing tickets which clearly merited dismissal. Examples include: (1) tickets which should have been voided initially due to incorrect information on the face of the ticket (D.C. Code 40-623); (2) tickets issued to residents for their failure to renew vehicle registrations when the Department failed to issue renewal notices; (3) tickets issued when street cleaning regulations should not have been enforced due to the Department's inability to clean streets during inclement weather conditions or after street cleaning crews had completed work in an area; (4) improperly written tickets or tickets not placed on vehicles by Parking Control Aides (PCAs) (Note: these PCAs have since been terminated); (5) tickets issued to vehicles parked at broken meters; and (6) improper ticketing of unmarked government vehicles that displayed government vehicle inspection stickers, including parking tickets issued to the Director of Public Works' vehicle. Whenever a vehicle identified by license plates as being owned, rented, or leased by the federal or District government is being used on official business and is parked in a parking meter zone, the operator of the vehicle is not required to deposit a coin in the parking meter (18 DCMR 2404.11). Additionally in response to your inquiry, the ten red meter infractions specifically referenced in the audit report which were issued to government vehicles assigned to the current and former DPW Directors should have been dismissed. The Ticket Processing Unit supervisor entered the decisions by the TSA Administrator for several reasons. The TSA Administrator did not maintain the technical capacity to input decisions and this process allowed for expedient tracking in the event the dismissal requests received and handled by the TSA Administrator required follow-up assistance. Although the audit report asserts the Administrator's dismissal of parking tickets to be costly in terms of uncollected revenue, the audit fails to substantiate that finding, particularly since the dismissals included tickets that should have been voided (see comment above), against which no revenues would have been collected. The number of tickets dismissed by request of the TSA Administrator was a minuscule percentage (.002%) of total tickets dismissed in 1996 and 1997. Further, there has been no finding that the tickets dismissed by the Administrator would not have been dismissed as a result of a formal hearing. Therefore, the reference to the dismissals as being costly to the District should be deleted. AUDIT RECOMMENDATION; The Department of Public Works should adhere to the provisions of Mayor's Memorandum 91-42 with respect to the use of official parking permits. DPW RESPONSE: As part of the initial training of hearing examiners and mail adjudicators, a copy of Mayor's Memorandum 91-42 has been and continues to be provided to the hearing examiners and mail adjudicators. The Memorandum is also discussed with the hearing examiners and mail adjudicators in detail. Mayor's Memorandum 91 42 includes the Department's clarification of Title 18 DCMR Section 2420, a regulation also binding upon the Council of the District of Columbia. The audit report notes that a government vehicle was designated as boot eligible. It has been a DPW policy not to boot government vehicles. This policy was implemented to avoid disruptions in public service and to ensure that government agencies are not impeded from implementing their public mandate. The audit report also makes reference to an administrative hearing officers manual published by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. This manual is not binding on the Department of Public Works and we do not operate in accordance with its contents. Therefore, reference to the manual should be deleted from the audit report. AUDIT RECOMMENDATION: DPW should immediately cease using hearing officer codes assigned to employees who no longer work for the Bureau of Adjudication. DPW should immediately update its hearing officer codes and implement appropriate guidelines governing the assignment, use, and cancellation of hearing officer codes. DPW RESPONSE: DPW concurs that codes assigned to a departed hearing examiner should be canceled and discontinued for use immediately. Notwithstanding the improper use of this particular code, the dispositions were appropriately processed. The former Bureau Chief of Adjudication's code was used to process a backlog of default tickets. This process allowed for respondents to appear at a hearing to resolve their traffic infraction without having to first attend a show cause hearing to set aside default judgment. For those respondents who failed to appear within a designated time period after being contacted by letter, dispositions were posted by the ticket system. These dispositions were outcomes based on the failure of persons contacted by letter to appear for a continued hearing within a designated period of time. They did not result from individual hearing examiner decisions. AUDIT RECOMMENDATION: DPW should take steps to improve the training of Parking Control Aides to reduce the number of voided tickets, and supervisors and PCAs should adhere to established parking control branch procedures for voided tickets. DPW RESPONSE: The Bureau of Parking Services has been receiving for several years monthly reports from the ticket processing contractor which list the number and type of errors detected on tickets issued by PCAs, number of tickets with reduced penalties or dismissals, and the number of voided tickets. Supervisors and PCAs meet monthly to discuss common errors cited on these reports. The ticket processing contractor will be requested to provide more detailed management reports which identify the number of voids for each PCA and the reasons for the voids. Through use of this data, supervisors will be able to monitor void performance and provide additional training as necessary. The Bureau of Parking Services will establish a performance measure to reduce the percentage of voided tickets to two percent of the total tickets issued. Currently, approximately three percent of tickets are voided prior to adjudication. AUDIT RECOMMENDATION: DPW, in future ticket processing contracts, should make provision for a reduced fee for the processing of voided tickets. DPW RESPONSE: DPW concurs with this recommendation and has already competitively solicited a five-year ticket processing contract which contains on the price schedule a separate pricing for voided and warning tickets. Bid proposals are currently being evaluated. AUDIT RECOMMENDATION: TSA should modify the back of its parking ticket to include an identifier such as the ticket number to link the front to the back of the ticket. DPW RESPONSE: It is not necessary to modify the parking ticket to link the front and back sides of the ticket for the following reasons: First, our current subcontractor for ticket printing, Toucan Business Forms, Inc., advises us that maintaining quality control when printing the same identification number on the front and back of the ticket is problematic. The probability of error dramatically increases with the addition of a ticket number on the back side of the ticket and will increase production cost and there will be a strong possibility that a ticket number on the front and back will not match, thereby resulting in a voidable ticket. Second, numbers are currently printed on the tickets after the tickets are assembled into sets and prior to being assembled into books. If tickets are destroyed in this process, they do not affect the finished product since they are not numbered. If numbered tickets are destroyed in the numbering or booking process, it is a simple procedure to re-set the numbering machine and recreate the missing numbers. If the tickets were numbered on both sides, the number on the back would have to be applied before the tickets are assembled into sets. This would create challenges with regard to tickets which get destroyed later in the production cycle. In Fall 1996, when DPW started recording the reasons for voiding tickets on the back of the tickets, DPW started imaging those voided tickets on a dual-sided scanner. The dual-sided scanning process links both sides of the ticket with a single document ID number and assures that both sides of voided tickets are imaged. Tickets appear as a two-page document on the screen accessed by users of the ticket system. However, if a ticket is voided after it has been imaged, it will not have been part of the dual-sided scanning process. Similarly, if a ticket was written prior to Fall 1996, it would not have been part of the dual- sided scanning process either. The numbers of these tickets have been small but the contractor has been advised of this issue and will review it. AUDI T RECOMMENDATION: Supervisors and PCAs should provide adequate justification for voiding a ticket on the back of every ticket that is voided. DPW RESPONSE: In the Fall of 1996, parking tickets were modified to include a space for void justification on the back of the government's ticket copy. All voided tickets contain the reason for voiding and are signed by the PCA and signed or initialed by the PCA supervisor and the signature of the shift coordinator. PCAs have been trained to complete the required information. In conclusion, the Department of Public Works found the audit report to be useful in reviewing its current policies and procedures to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. Although many of the recommendations have already been implemented, the Department continually welcomes suggestions to control, evaluate and improve its quality of services. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, cc: Camille C. Barnett, Ph.D. Gwen Mitchell, Administrator Back to top of page — Back to table of contents GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR September 22, 1998 Ms. Deborah K. Nichols
Dear Ms. Nichols: This letter responds to your draft audit report entitled "Evaluation of the Department of Public Works' Policies and Procedures for Adjudicating and Voiding Parking Tickets" received by the D.C. Department of Public Works ("DPW") on September 15, 1998. Since the draft audit report includes various assertions that were made in the May 26, 1998 report, DPW specifically incorporates and appends its two prior responses to this supplementary letter. See Appendix A. Before I address specific assertions in your report, I would like to express my concern regarding your continued discourse concerning a senior official in the DPW Transportation Systems Administration ("TSA"). Your report continues to assert that the TSA Administrator lacked the legal authority to adjudicate parking tickets and that her adjudication of tickets creates the appearance of a conflict of interest. Your continued assertion is troubling especially in light of a legal opinion rendered (at your request) by the Office of the Corporation Counsel which unequivocally concludes that the TSA Administrator has the legal authority to adjudicate tickets. A copy of the OCC opinion dated July 27, 1998 is incorporated in this response and appended hereto. See Appendix B. Accordingly, since the TSA Administrator has the requisite legal authority there can be no conflict of interest in performing duties that she is legally empowered to perform. Since OCC is the agency empowered to render legal opinions for the District Government, your assertions are legally inaccurate and may be construed as defamatory. I urge you to delete legally unsubstantiated assertions in your final public report. The section of the draft report that discusses TSA's alleged mismanagement of the mail adjudication process has several technical deficiencies which should be corrected prior to publication. First, DPW does not issue any moving violations as you state on page 3. Also, the list of federal and District entities is inaccurate. There are additional federal and District governmental entities empowered to issue parking and moving violations.1 Beyond the technical deficiencies, the draft audit report fails to analyze how the volume of tickets issued by District and federal government entities has changed and fails to analyze how the quantity of tickets issued by non-DPW entities2 unavoidably impacts the backlog of unadjudicated parking tickets. Although the audit mentions non-DPW entities' issuance of parking tickets. this fact is never connected with adjudications processing, which is the core objective of the audit report. The audit report also states that parking enforcement and adjudication "failed to operate in tandem". Although parking enforcement and adjudication are currently in the same administration and department, it is of paramount importance that the two operate totally independently to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Parking enforcement officials are required to focus on enforcing relevant District laws and regulations that ensure the safe and efficient movement of people and vehicles -not how the adjudicatory bureau manages its caseload. Would you suggest that DPW should have advised the Metropolitan Police Department and federal law enforcement officials to issue fewer tickets to scofflaws because the Bureau of Adjudication lacked a full complement of hearing examiners and mail adjudicators? Clearly such a suggestion would be improper for DPW to make to any law enforcement official, including its own enforcement officials. In addition, the draft audit ignores the severe and well- documented fiscal constraints that impacted DPW and District agencies during the mid-1990s.3 In fact, the fiscal constraints resulted in incentive buy-outs and reductions-in-force which further impacted DPW's ability to staff up and perform its work. These severe fiscal constraints were problematic in the hiring of additional hearing examiners and associated staff and the implementation of technological improvements. During the audit period, DPW managers clearly recognized the need to hire additional hearing examiners and mail adjudicators. This need, however, had to be accomplished within the confines of other priority DPW services funded from the appropriated budget. Before "mismanagement of the mail adjudication process" can be the discernible conclusion of an auditor, all factors must be considered and analyzed. Finally, on page 6, you make unsubstantiated remarks about a two-year period prior to the audit period. This reference should be deleted since the audit period was January 1, 1996 – December 31, 1997. The report also remarks on DPW's "aggressive" parking control program. The DPW parking program has received substantial media attention recently. The draft audit's criticism, however, appears to be outside the stated objective of the audit (i.e. to evaluate the process for-adjudicating and voiding parking tickets). Since these remarks are unsubstantiated within the audit report, they should be stricken. At a minimum, the draft audit report should analyze how the number of parking tickets issued by DPW parking control aides corresponds with the number of hearing requests at the Bureau of Adjudication. Notwithstanding, please note that the Chief Management Officer, DPW senior managers, supervisors, and parking control aides have met on various parking reform measures, including the 90 ticket per day performance measure. As you are aware, DPW has already publicly announced several parking reform measures which have already been implemented.4 Should you desire a copy of the parking reform measures, I will gladly send this information to you. Furthermore, the draft audit states that "DPW implemented the mail adjudication program...to alleviate customer dissatisfaction, inefficiencies, and inequities in the traffic adjudication system." The report should provide substantiation for this assertion and reported rationale. In fact, the Council of the District of Columbia enacted the requisite legal authority for mail adjudication in 1978. The factual reason that DPW implemented mail adjudication was to comply with District law and regulations. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Department of Public Works has serious concerns with the audit findings and recommendations that are legally inaccurate and unsubstantiated. For your convenience, I have enumerated the major deficiencies below:
The Department of Public Works continually welcomes suggestions to manage, evaluate, and improve its quality of services and operation. Should you desire to meet to discuss this matter further or any responses contained herein, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, cc: Camille C. Barnett, Ph.D. 1. A complete list of entities empowered to issue Notices of Infractions for parking violations is compiled in 18 DCMR §3002.1 and for moving violations in 18 DCMR §3003.1 (as amended). 2. Please be advised that several non-DPW entities, like the Metropolitan Police Department, also issue certain moving violations that are adjudicated by the Bureau of Adjudication. The report inaccurately represents that these entities only issue parking tickets. 3. In April 1995, Congress declared, inter alia, "a combination of accumulated operating deficits, cash shortages, management inefficiencies, and deficit spending in the current fiscal year have created a fiscal emergency in the District of Columbia. " See, Findings and Purpose in the "District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995". Public Law 104-8. 4. Please note that the 90 ticket per day performance measure was suspended this year. This performance measure was only one of the five measures that were used to evaluate a PCA's performance. Back to top of page — Back to table of contents GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR September 25, 1998 Ms. Deborah K. Nichols
Dear Ms. Nichols: This letter responds to your draft audit report entitled Evaluation of the Department of Public Works' Policies and Procedures for Adjudicating and Voiding Parking Tickets" received by the D.C. Department of Public Works ("DPW") on September 15, 1998. Since the draft audit report includes various assertions that were made in the May 26, 1998 report, DPW specifically incorporates and appends its two prior responses1 to this supplementary letter. See Appendix A. Management Reform Improvements Although DPW recognizes that the audit period covers January 1, 1996 – December 31, 1997, at the outset I would like to discuss the management reform improvements currently underway in the District Government related to the restructured Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") and its adjudicatory operations and procedures. As we previously noted, the DMV will become a separate department from DMV on October 1, 1998. It is acknowledged that an organizational restructuring of services and management levels within DMV is needed to more appropriately align resources to critical services. The major services provided by the DMV are driver licensing, motor vehicle registration and inspection, parking and traffic ticket adjudication, and vehicle insurance enforcement. In order for DMV to carry out its mission there are a number of mandatory requirements. Some of these mandates are federally imposed, while others are requirements of the District Government. A careful review of the current regulatory environment is necessary to assure that the DMV is not itself restricting the efficient and effective provision of services. This review is included in the current management reform initiatives undertaken by a variety of representatives from the Chief Management Officer ("CMO"), ), Department of Public Works, and private consultants. The revised structure will address reorganizing around core activities and proper management controls to assure quality services to those that interact with the DMV, particularly the motoring public within the District of Columbia. The delivery of services is fragmented geographically and functionally. Issues of identifying and acquiring adequate technology and staff development to support a reorganized DMV is of major concern. Admittedly some current DMV procedures are old and in need of restructuring. Many procedures have been in place for years and predate technological solutions that currently exist. The current hierarchical management structure focuses on functional-alignment, control, manual processes and as opposed to the delivery of consistent and timely service to the customers of the DMV. At this time, much of DMV is still operating on inadequate personal computers and limited automated integration of information between the DMV bureaus. The CMO and DPW fully recognize that a greater investment in technology and in staff development needs to occur. It is also recognized that some of the current systems and practices are inadequate, resulting in a continuing cycle of delays for the customers and lost revenues. By the close of Fiscal Year 1999, when DMV has been restructured, the acknowledged problems will be resolved concerning the adjudication and voiding of parking tickets by all DMV employees. In restructuring the DMV, the management reform team will consider any appropriate findings from the final audit report. Specific Comments on the Draft Audit Report Before I address specific assertions in your report, I would like to express my concern regarding your continued discourse concerning the DPW Transportation Systems Administration ("TSA") processing of tickets. Your report asserts that the TSA Administrator lacked the legal authority to adjudicate parking tickets and that her adjudication of tickets created the appearance of a conflict of interest. Your continued assertion is troubling especially in light of a legal opinion rendered (at your request) by the Office of the Corporation Counsel ("OCC") which unequivocally concludes that the TSA Administrator has the legal authority to adjudicate tickets.2 A copy of the OCC opinion dated July 27, 1998 is incorporated in this response and appended hereto. See Appendix B. Accordingly, since the TSA Administrator has the requisite legal authority there can be no conflict of interest in performing duties that she is legally empowered to perform. Since OCC is the agency empowered to render legal opinions for the District Government, your assertions are legally inaccurate. I urge you to delete legally inaccurate assertions in your final public report. The draft audit correctly refers to D.C. Code §40-703 (c) which provides express authority for Congressional members to park on public streets, without the imposition of parking tickets, except when the vehicle is not parked in violation of a loading zone, rush hour, firehouse, or fire plug limitation. Unfortunately, on occasion, issuing officers will still issue tickets to Congressional members. Instead of referring the Congressional member to the Bureau of Adjudication, the TSA Administrator would adjudicate these tickets. The audit report indicates that there or no other laws or regulations pertaining to parking privileges for public [government] officials. To the contrary, 18 DCR _2404.11 states that "whenever a vehicle identified by license plates as being owned, rented, or leased by the federal or District government is being used on official business and is parked in a parking meter zone, the operator of the vehicle is not required to deposit a coin in the parking meter." Unfortunately, on the occasion, issuing officers will still issue tickets to government vehicles parked adjacent to "red" parking meters. Instead of referring the government official to the Bureau of Adjudication, the TSA Administrator would adjudicate these tickets. In addition, instances arise in which vehicles are used for undercover law enforcement or surveillance work by government officials, and it is not apparent that the vehicle is being used by the federal or District government on official business. Unfortunately, on the occasion, issuing officers will issue tickets to the unmarked government vehicles parked adjacent to "red" parking meters. Instead of referring the government official to the Bureau of Adjudication, the TSA Administrator would adjudicate these tickets. A prior response to the draft audit report attached copies of government vehicle inspection stickers and private vehicle inspection stickers. The inspection sticker, along with data contained in the Motor Vehicle Information System, allow the TSA Administrator to ascertain whether the vehicle is a government vehicle and the ticket should be dismissed. The June 10, 1998 response lists at least five other examples of instances in which the TSA Administrator has adjudicated tickets for private citizens.3 These matters represent the very limited number of tickets which are adjudicated by the TSA Administrator. DPW will recommend that the new DMV specifically consider whether this adjudication procedure should continue in the future. The section of the draft report that discusses TSA's alleged mismanagement of the mail adjudication process has several technical deficiencies which should be corrected prior to publication. First, DPW does not issue any moving violations as you state on page 3. Also, the list of federal and District entities is inaccurate. There are additional federal and District governmental entities empowered to issue parking and moving violations.4 Beyond the technical deficiencies, the draft audit report fails to analyze how the volume of tickets issued by District and federal government entities has changed and fails to analyze how the quantity of tickets issued by non-DPW entities5 unavoidably impacts the backlog of unadjudicated parking tickets. Although the audit mentions non-DPW entities' issuance of parking tickets, this fact is never connected with adjudications processing, which is the core objective of the audit report. The audit report also states that parking enforcement and adjudication "failed to operate in tandem". Although parking enforcement and adjudication are currently in the same administration and department, it is of paramount importance that the two operate totally independently to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Parking enforcement officials are required to focus on enforcing relevant District laws and regulations that ensure the safe and efficient movement of people and vehicles -not how the adjudicatory bureau manages its caseload.6 Would you suggest that DPW should have advised the Metropolitan Police Department and federal law enforcement officials to issue fewer tickets to scofflaws because the Bureau of Adjudication lacked a full complement of hearing examiners and mail adjudicators? Clearly such a suggestion would be improper for DPW to make to any law enforcement official, including its own enforcement officials. In addition, the draft audit ignores the well-documented severe fiscal constraints that impacted DPW and District agencies during the mid-1990s.7 In fact, the fiscal constraints — resulted in employee incentive buy-outs and reductions-in-force which further impacted DPW's ability to staff up and perform its work. These severe fiscal constraints were problematic in the hiring of additional hearing examiners and associated staff and the implementation of technological improvements. During the audit period, DPW managers clearly recognized the need to hire additional hearing examiners and mail adjudicators. This need, however, had to be accomplished within the confines of other priority DPW services funded from the appropriated budget. Before "mismanagement of the mail adjudication process" can be the discernible conclusion of an auditor, all factors should be considered and analyzed. Finally, on page 6, you make unsubstantiated remarks about a two year period prior to the audit period. This reference should be deleted since the audit period was January 1, 1996 - December 31, 1997. The report also remarks on DPW's "aggressive" parking control program. The DPW parking program has received substantial media attention recently. The draft audit's criticism, however, appears to be outside the stated objective of the audit (i.e. to evaluate the process for adjudicating and voiding parking tickets). Since these remarks are unsubstantiated within the audit report, they should be stricken. At a minimum, the draft audit report should analyze how the number of parking tickets issued by DPW parking control aides corresponds with the number of hearing requests at the Bureau of Adjudication. Notwithstanding, please note that the Chief Management Officer, DPW senior managers, supervisors, and parking control aides have met on various parking reform measures, including the 90 ticket per day performance measure. As you are aware, DPW has already publicly announced several parking reform measures which have already been implemented.8 Should you desire a copy of the parking reform measures, I will gladly send this information to you. Furthermore, the draft audit states that "DPW implemented the mail adjudication program...to alleviate customer dissatisfaction, inefficiencies, and inequities in the traffic adjudication system." The report should provide substantiation for this assertion and reported rationale. In fact, the Council of the District of Columbia enacted the requisite legal authority for mail adjudication in 1978. The factual reason that DPW implemented mail adjudication was to comply with District law and regulations. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Department of Public Works has serious concerns with the audit findings and recommendations that are legally inaccurate and unsubstantiated. For your convenience, I have enumerated the major deficiencies below: The Office of the Corporation Counsel has rendered a written opinion that the TSA Administrator has the legal authority to adjudicate tickets. Consequently, her performance of adjudicatory job functions should not be construed as unauthorized and as a conflict of interest. These assertions should be stricken from the final audit report. Furthermore, tickets handled by the TSA Administrator were researched and will give consideration to any appropriate findings in the final audit report. Should you desire to meet to discuss this matter further or any responses contained herein, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, cc: Camille C. Barnett, Ph.D. 1. Letter to Interim D.C. Auditor dated June 10, 1998 and Letter to Interim D.C. Auditor dated June 19, 1998. 2. OCC noted that the authority of the DPW Director (and his delegate) to adjudicate parking and minor traffic offenses can be traced back to June 30, 1972. The OCC opinion also cites 18 DCR §1007.2 and §1000.4, Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1983, and Mayor's Order No. 84-55. OCC also found that the position description of the TSA Administrator (which includes implementation of regulations ...adjudication of disputes regarding traffic movement and parking in the public right of way") represents a delegation of authority by the DPW Director to the TSA Administrator. 3. The examples include: (1) tickets which should have been voided initially due to incorrect information on the face of the ticket, (2) tickets issued to District residents for their failure to renew vehicle registrations when DPW failed to issue renewal notices (3) tickets issued when street cleaning restrictions should not have been enforced due to inclement weather conditions; (4) improperly written tickets or tickets not placed on vehicles by PCAs; and (5) tickets issued to vehicles parked at broken meters. 4. A complete list of entities empowered to issue Notices of Infractions for parking violations is compiled in 18 DCMR §3002.1 and for moving violations in 18 DCMR §3003.1 (as amended). 5. Please be advised that several non-DPW entities, like the Metropolitan Police Department, also issue certain moving violations that are adjudicated by the Bureau of Adjudication. The report inaccurately represents that these entities only issue parking tickets. 6. Would you suggest that DPW should have advised the Metropolitan Police Department and federal law enforcement officials to issue fewer tickets to scofflaws because the Bureau of Adjudication lacked a full complement of hearing examiners and mail adjudicators? Clearly such a suggestion would be improper for DPW to make to any law enforcement official, including its own enforcement officials. 7. In April 1995, Congress declared, inter alia, "a combination of accumulated operating deficits, cash shortages, management inefficiencies, and deficit spending in the current fiscal year have created a fiscal emergency in the District of Columbia." See, Findings and Purpose in the "District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995". Public Law 104-8. 8. Please note that the 90 ticket per day performance measure was suspended this year. This performance measure was only one of the five measures that were used to evaluate a PCA's performance. |
Back to top of page — Back to table of contents
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)
