Overview
MEP did not have documentation to substantiate that officers received approval from the Director (Colonel) before working split shifts. We identified 784 overtime shifts (worked before the Colonel issued a memo in 2016 restricting split shifts) for which officers did not receive documented approval before splitting their regular time to work the overtime. We identified an additional 1,050 split shifts, worked after the Colonel’s memo, for which officers did not receive documented approval or document the mission-specific objective or unique public safety benefit of the overtime. As a result of these issues, MEP may have improperly paid overtime to officers.
Authoritative Guidance
Section 7.1(B) of the unit 5 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) states,
Environmental Police Officers may, voluntarily, subject to the approval of the [Colonel], work a split work shift, not to exceed eight (8) hours and thirty (30) minutes in the aggregate, including a paid meal period, in a twenty-four (24) hour period. “Environmental Police Officers” shall include Supervisors.
In addition, a memo from MEP’s Colonel, dated December 12, 2016, states,
As you are aware, under Article 7, Section 7.1(B) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the splitting of shifts is subject to the approval of the [Colonel]. I will continue reviewing all such requests and may allow an officer to split his or her shift for mission specific objectives or if there is an unique public safety benefit. However, please be advised that I will no longer approve split shifts to enable an officer to work a detail shift for the Department of Conservation and Recreation or any private entities.
MEP has developed forms for all other types of overtime indicating that formal authorization is required, demonstrating the deficiency of not having one for split shifts. Also, although there is no formal policy in place that requires documenting the mission-specific objective or unique public safety benefit of overtime, not doing so creates a lack of transparency and the appearance that the overtime is without merit.
Reasons for Issue
MEP management stated that it was common practice to authorize split shifts verbally. Also, there were no policies and procedures in place requiring the mission-specific objective or unique public safety benefit of overtime to be formally documented.
Recommendation
MEP should create policies and procedures, including a monitoring component, to ensure that all split shifts are authorized and documented before they are worked.
Auditee’s Response
This finding is based on the audit team's mistaken belief that there is a requirement that the MEP Director (Colonel) authorize each and every split shift on an individual basis rather than authorizing the use of split shifts for certain classes of overtime. This is a question of contract and policy interpretation on which the audit team should have deferred to the agency's reasonable interpretation.
By way of background, in December 2016, the Colonel issued a directive that simultaneously limited approval of split shifts for certain purposes and re-affirmed and documented his approval of the use of split shifts for three particular purposes. The MEP and the Union have understood and continue to understand the governing provision of the collective bargaining agreement to allow the Colonel to approve a class of split shifts as opposed to requiring an individual approval for each officer working each split shift. The Colonel's determination of whether "mission specific objectives" or a "unique public safety benefit" justify the use of split shifts is made when considering the type of activity as a whole, and not on a shift by shift basis. For example, the Colonel approved the use of split shifts in connection with work authorized by MEP's joint enforcement agreement with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. The Colonel has not and was not required to issue separate additional approvals for each officer on each patrol.
The MEP believes that this memorandum serves as documentation of proper approval for all split shifts within these three classes. The MEP notes that each of these activities is subject to additional approvals before EPOs engage in the underlying work.
Auditor’s Reply
As noted above, in his December 2016 memo, MEP’s Colonel states,
As you are aware, under Article 7, Section 7.1(B) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the splitting of shifts is subject to the approval of the [Colonel]. I will continue reviewing all such requests and may allow an officer to split his or her shift for mission specific objectives or if there is an unique public safety benefit. However, please be advised that I will no longer approve split shifts to enable an officer to work a detail shift for the Department of Conservation and Recreation or any private entities. [Emphasis added.]
To OSA, the wording of this memo, specifically the portion in bold, indicates that the Colonel will review all split shift requests and approve them on a case-by-case basis. If, as MEP asserts in its response, both MEP and the union understand that the governing provision of the CBA allows the Colonel to approve a class of split shifts as opposed to requiring individual approval for each officer working each split shift, this understanding should have been recorded by management in MEP policy to ensure that proper controls existed over this process. Therefore, OSA does not agree with MEP that the December 16 directive issued by the Colonel serves as documentation of proper approval for all split shifts for certain classes of overtime, nor does it effect proper controls over this process. We again urge MEP to implement our recommendation.
| Date published: | April 21, 2020 |
|---|