By Adam Pagnucco.
Montgomery County Inspector General Megan Davey Limarzi has released a report finding that an employee of the Office of County Attorney (OCA), which provides legal services to county departments, misused a county vehicle. Specifically, the employee drove the vehicle for personal use and failed to report an accident to the county.
The investigation began with an anonymous complaint making a host of allegations, including that the unnamed employee “instructed an MCPD executive to use the Signal messaging application for County business to avoid MPIA requirements.” That latter allegation was not substantiated by the investigation.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that the employee received a county vehicle after their client department head requested one from Fleet Management due to the fact that the employee’s personal vehicle was being repaired. The OIG wrote:
*****
The client department head told us that although they placed no restrictions on the vehicle’s use, they did not intend that the employee use the vehicle for personal reasons. The employee’s OCA supervisor stated that they were unaware that the employee was assigned a vehicle by the client department…
The employee’s Department Director, the County Attorney, was not aware that the employee was assigned a vehicle and therefore did not approve the assignment. As a result, the County did not verify that the employee had a valid driver’s license and their driving record was not being routinely reviewed by the Division of Risk Management. Additionally, the County Attorney stated that OCA employees are not permitted to drive County vehicles.
*****
The employee admitted to OIG that they “occasionally used the vehicle for personal reasons” and also for commuting to work.
The employee then had an accident while driving the county vehicle. The OIG wrote:
*****
The employee was involved in a motor vehicle accident around 9:00 p.m. while driving their County vehicle. The other driver involved in the accident called the police who subsequently responded to the scene.
The employee admitted to the responding officers that they were at fault for the accident. The employee stated that they were stopped at a traffic light, using their cellular phone, and “rolled” into the car in front of them, which caused the Chevrolet emblem on the front of the County vehicle they were driving to fall off. The employee told one of the officers on the scene that they were coming from a happy hour where they consumed a glass of prosecco at 3:30 p.m.
*****
Police officers on the scene found no sign that the driver was impaired and did not administer a field sobriety test. Nevertheless, the OIG wrote, “AP [Administrative Procedure] 1-4 prohibits operation of a County vehicle within four hours of the ingestion of any amount of alcohol. While the employee’s testimony indicates that they may not have directly violated this aspect of the policy, their decision to drive the vehicle to a happy hour event and then home is a clear misuse of a County vehicle. Additionally, AP 1-4 requires that employees obey all traffic laws against cellular phone use while driving.”
The employee did not report the accident to their supervisor. On that, the OIG wrote:
*****
When asked why they did not report the accident to their supervisor or bring the vehicle in for an assessment following the accident, the employee explained that despite the Chevrolet emblem falling off, they did not consider the vehicle to be damaged, as they were able to reattach the emblem a couple of weeks after the accident. Notwithstanding the employee’s claim that the vehicle did not sustain damage, County employees are required to report all accidents involving bodily injury, property damage, or even the potential for loss. According to the County Self-Insurance Fund Claims Manager, the County faces significant risk if an employee does not adhere to this reporting policy. Maryland drivers have up to three years following an accident to initiate a claim for vehicle damage or personal injury. Risk Management has encountered previous instances where accidents went unreported and the other driver subsequently claimed property damage or injury. In these cases, the County is left in a difficult position to determine liability without the proper documentation and timely investigation.
Finally, Risk Management staff explained that even a superficial collision may lead to thousands of dollars of body work repairs due to hidden damage that only a trained auto appraiser would be able to ascertain. Risk Management believes it is prudent to inspect all vehicles involved in collisions to determine whether they are safe for continued operation.
*****
The OIG concluded:
*****
Our investigation did not substantiate the allegations as presented. We did not find that the employee participated in official travel outside the scope of their duties or instructed a MCPD executive to use the Signal messaging application for County business in order to avoid requirements under the MPIA. We also did not substantiate that the employee was intoxicated at the time of the accident, or that someone at MCPD “made it disappear.”
However, we found that the employee repeatedly misused a County vehicle and failed to properly report an accident to their supervisor.
*****
The employee resigned from county employment during the investigation. In response to the OIG report, Chief Administrative Officer Rich Madaleno stated that he was “very disappointed with the repeated misuse of a County vehicle and failing to properly report an accident to the proper personnel.” He wrote that the county was “committed to taking all necessary measures” to ensuring compliance with county policies on county vehicles.