OIG Annual Report 2020: Division of State Police Oversight

Part VII of the Office of the Inspector General's 2020 Annual Report

The legislature created the Division of State Police Oversight (State Police Division) as an independent unit to oversee the Massachusetts State Police (MSP).⁹ The State Police Division’s mission encompasses, but is not limited to (1) monitoring the quality, efficiency and integrity of the MSP’s operations, organizational structure and management functions; (2) seeking to prevent, detect and correct fraud, waste and abuse in the expenditure of public funds; and (3) monitoring policy changes instituted as a result of the MSP’s certification or accreditation by a police accrediting agency pursuant to Section 73 of Chapter 22C of the Massachusetts General Laws. The State Police Division’s enabling statute requires it to publish an annual report each March. Below are highlights from that report.

I. Audits, Investigations and Reviews

A. Review of Highway Overtime Shifts

The State Police Division reviewed federally funded highway overtime shifts (Special Overtime Shifts) that troopers in Troop A worked in 2016.¹⁰ These four-hour overtime shifts are similar, but not identical, to the highway overtime shifts that were at the center of the overtime abuses by members of Troop E.¹¹ The review of Special Overtime Shift in Troop A was part of the State Police Division’s ongoing effort to examine whether overtime abuse exists in other troops. This ongoing review also enables the State Police Division to identify policies and other controls that the MSP should put in place to prevent overtime abuse in the future.

MSP records, including data from the radios installed in all MSP cruisers, indicate that 33 troopers in Troop A did not work their full overtime shifts during 2016.¹² However, the State Police Division did not find overtime abuse comparable to the abuse found in Troop E.

The individual troopers in Troop E who were convicted in relation to overtime abuse failed to work between approximately 90 and 400 hours of overtime. In Troop A, the State Police Division reviewed 207 overtime shifts for 43 troopers and found 93 instances in which records indicated that the trooper was absent for at least 15 minutes of the overtime shift.

Overall, the State Police Division found that 10 of the 43 troopers who worked Special Overtime Shifts in 2016 always worked their full shift. The remaining 33 troopers did not work a combined total of 79.2 hours across 93 shifts. One trooper was absent for more than three hours of a Special Overtime Shift. The Division did not find any trooper who was absent for a full four-hour overtime shift.

The State Police Division also found that troopers often treated their commuting time as part of the four-hour overtime shift. However, MSP policy is clear that commute time is not included in a trooper’s hours of work for an overtime shift. In its review, the State Police Division took a conservative approach and counted commute time as part of the overtime shifts. If the division did not count troopers’ commute times towards hours worked, this would increase the number of overtime hours that some Troop A troopers failed to work in 2016.

The State Police Division’s finding that a trooper was absent for a portion of an overtime shift is not necessarily a specific finding of wrongdoing. Further investigation would be needed to make that determination.

Based on its review, the State Police Division recommended that the MSP enforce its policy that commute time is not part of the overtime shift. For example, the MSP should clarify through policy and training that highway overtime shifts do not begin until the trooper is present at the assigned shift location and that the shift continues at the assigned location for four hours thereafter, with the trooper performing their assigned overtime duties.

B. Review of the Top-50-Earners Quarterly Audit

In 2020, the State Police Division reviewed the original methodology for the Top-50-Earners Quarterly Audit (Top-50 Audit), which is an audit the MSP conducts to detect fraudulent activity by the 50 troopers who received the most earnings in the previous quarter. At the MSP’s request, the State Police Division also reviewed the MSP’s proposed changes to the audit, including moving from a quarterly to a weekly audit schedule and selecting the auditees at random. The State Police Division’s goal was to determine how to redesign the Top-50 Audit to effectively identify overtime fraud.

The State Police Division found that, as originally designed, the Top-50 Audit did not serve the audit’s goal of identifying overtime fraud. First, the original guidelines and methodology primarily examined whether troopers complied with the MSP’s policies and procedures, as well as with the troopers’ collective bargaining agreement, regarding limitations on hours worked per day and per week.

Second, because the Top-50 Audit focused on the troopers who earned the most money in the previous quarter, the MSP repeatedly audited the same high-salaried troopers, who generally do not work as much overtime as other troopers. Third, the top-earners approach also flagged recent retirees whose quarterly pay was inflated by one-time payouts unrelated to overtime.

The State Police Division found the MSP’s new practice of conducting weekly audits of troopers who are chosen at random expanded the number of individuals the MSP reviews. However, the State Police Division determined that the MSP could better achieve the Top-50 Audit’s goal of identifying overtime abuse by focusing on troopers who work the most overtime hours.

The State Police Division recommended that the MSP continue to improve its Top-50 Audit and take a more fraud-based approach with a primary focus of verifying that troopers are in fact working the total number of overtime hours reported. Also, the State Police Division recommended that the MSP focus its review on the troopers who worked the most overtime hours during the review period.

II. The MSP’s Efforts to Achieve Certification and Accreditation

The State Police Division continued to monitor the MSP’s efforts to achieve certification and accreditation pursuant to Section 72 of Chapter 22C of the Massachusetts General Laws.

By the end of 2020, the MSP had met over 85% of the mandated standards necessary to achieve certification from the Massachusetts Police Accreditation Commission.

Additionally, the State Police Division found that the MSP established a Policy Review Committee to examine all MSP policies, rules and regulations each year to maintain compliance with all certification and accreditation standards. As required by Section 72 of Chapter 22C, the MSP will continue working towards certification and accreditation and the State Police Division will continue to monitor these efforts.

III. The MSP’s Efforts to Improve Its Timekeeping and Payroll System

The State Police Division reviewed changes the MSP made to its time-and-attendance and payroll processes during 2020 to determine whether the modifications tighten internal controls and reduce the risks of fraud, waste and abuse of public funds. The division found that the MSP enhanced the approval process in PayStation, its time-and-attendance and payroll system, by eliminating the ability of subordinates to review and approve their supervisors’ time and attendance. The State Police Division found that instituting this chain-of-command-based approval process enhanced accountability and reduced the risk of fraud and abuse.

The State Police Division recommended that the MSP continue upgrading PayStation with a focus on mitigating the risks of fraud, waste and abuse of public funds.

Additional Resources

OIG 2020 Annual Report

⁹ Section 72 of Chapter 22C of the Massachusetts General Laws refers to the State Police Division as “an internal special audit unit.” The Inspector General renamed the State Police Division to avoid confusion with the previously created Internal Special Audit Unit within the Department of Transportation (see M.G.L. c. 6C, § 9).

¹⁰ Troop A is part of the Division of Field Services, which oversees highway safety, assists municipal law enforcement agencies by responding to public safety emergencies or incidents and provides other patrol resources and special operations across the Commonwealth. The Division of Field Services is now comprised of six troops covering the entire Commonwealth (A, B, C, D, F and H). Each troop covers a specific geographic region of the Commonwealth. Troopers are assigned specific areas within each troop during routine patrols and overtime shifts.

¹¹ After multiple troopers were charged for crimes related to overtime abuse, the MSP abolished Troop E and shifted its responsibilities to other troops in the MSP.

¹² In the spring of 2017, several Massachusetts media outlets began reporting about overtime irregularities in Troop E. The Division chose to review highway overtime shifts before the Troop E overtime abuse became public in order to identify the full scope of any potential overtime irregularities in other troops.

Date published:	April 30, 2021