By Adam Pagnucco.
In March 2024, Inspector General Megan Davey Limarzi issued a report finding that the Montgomery County Police Department (MCPD) “did not always confirm the accuracy of collected citation revenue” from its speed camera program and “does not provide oversight of the traffic enforcement contractor’s handling of unpaid citations or their attempts to collect unpaid revenue.” Accordingly, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a number of recommendations to fix these and other problems. Chief Administrative Officer Rich Madaleno concurred with all of them. And so the problems have been solved, right?
Yesterday, the OIG issued a new report indicating that problems continue.
MCPD’s Automated Traffic Enforcement Unit (ATEU) does not administer the speed camera program directly and instead relies on a contractor. The OIG explained the original contract in March.
On March 29, 2022, the county entered into a $100 million contract for the management of the county’s automated traffic enforcement program. This includes the installation of new digital camera systems capable of capturing and validating red-light and speed violations. The contractor is responsible for the collection of all fines, waiving penalties at the county’s direction, tracking payments from violators, and providing ad hoc reports to MCPD. Under the contract terms, the contractor is entitled to $26.50 per paid red-light camera citation and $5,995 for each speed camera per calendar month. Additionally, the contractor is to provide MCPD access to payment and citation data as well as the functionality to query and download reports from the contractor’s system, CiteWeb5 (CW5).
However, both OIG reports have found oversight problems in the program. In yesterday’s report, the OIG wrote:
We initiated this review to examine the Montgomery County Police Department’s (MCPD) oversight of billing activity associated with speed cameras operated as part of MCPD’s automated speed enforcement program. The review was predicated on our findings from a FY2024 OIG audit of MCPD’s oversight and processing of billings associated with the deployment of red-light cameras. In that audit, we found that MCPD was not confirming the accuracy of invoices prior to payment. In this review, we again found that MCPD did not consistently confirm receipt of the number of cameras for which they were billed, and did not monitor performance metrics outlined in the contract. Additionally, we noted that the ATEU does not have written procedures governing required daily tests of speed cameras.
In the new report, the OIG made three findings.
MCPD did not consistently confirm they received the number of cameras for which they were billed prior to paying invoices.
As stated above, the contractor is paid in part based on the number of cameras that it provides. However, the OIG “determined that the number of cameras appearing on invoices generated from January to June [2023] may not have reflected the actual number of cameras in operation.”
MCPD does not have written policies and procedures governing daily required tests of speed cameras.
The OIG noted that state law requires a daily set-up log that “States that the speed monitoring system operator successfully performed or reviewed and evaluated the manufacturer-specified daily self-test of the speed monitoring system prior to producing a recorded image.” However, the OIG found, “MCPD has no written policies and procedures governing how they performed the required tests or otherwise complied with the law… MCPD’s lack of policies and procedures surrounding the process of testing cameras before they are put into operation appears to be a contributing factor to the deficiencies we observed.”
MCPD did not monitor performance metrics outlined in the contract resulting in the County potentially overpaying for speed cameras.
The contract’s performance metrics include this requirement:
The “monthly prosecutable issuance rate” (MPIR) measures the percentage of valid citations generated by all cameras. The contract stipulates that 90% of all activity captured (less uncontrollable factors, non-violations, or false triggers) must result in citations that can be pursued for prosecution; i.e. the citations must actually be useful to law enforcement. The County may withhold payment to the contractor for an amount equal to the difference between the required MPIR and actual calculated MPIR.
However, the OIG found that the cameras “issued prosecutable citations in approximately 44% of captured activity. This would have translated to a reduction on invoices of approximately $2.5 million if ATEU was tracking the MPIR and enforcing the terms of the contract.”
MCPD’s “lax oversight,” a term used by the OIG, is therefore costing taxpayers money.
The OIG proceeded to issue three recommendations for improvement. Chief Administrative Officer Rich Madaleno concurred with all of them. But here’s the problem. Madaleno concurred with all of the recommendations in the earlier report and yet the OIG issued a second report stating, “We again found that MCPD did not consistently confirm receipt of the number of cameras for which they were billed, and did not monitor performance metrics outlined in the contract.”
Note the use of the word “again.”
The OIG does not run the government. That’s the job of the county executive and executive branch managers. The county is known for generously paying its top managers.
On this particular program, it is time for them to manage.