The Division of Standards Does Not Inspect Every Weighing and Measuring Device Annually in Towns With 5,000 or Fewer Inhabitants.

Audit recommends the DOS establish formal policies for annual inspection procedures and develop an electronic database to help it effectively monitor completion of these inspections.

Overview

The Division of Standards (DOS) does not inspect every weighing and measuring device annually in towns with 5,000 or fewer inhabitants. Specifically, we noted the following problems:

• DOS did not have any inspection reports on file for 42 of the 106 towns in Massachusetts that had 5,000 or fewer inhabitants. From the 42 towns, we selected the 10 most populous and used Google Maps to identify businesses that might be using weighing and measuring devices that would be subject to annual inspection by DOS. We selected 16 businesses and visited 10 of them. Four of them were using weighing and measuring devices that did not have current inspection stickers. At the other 6 businesses, although there were inspection stickers³ on weighing and measuring devices indicating that they had been inspected, DOS had no record of those inspections on file.
• We selected 120 weighing and measuring devices listed on DOS inspection reports and examined the devices at the businesses and schools where they were located. Three of the devices did not have current inspection stickers.
• We visited a random sample of 21 businesses for which DOS had inspection reports on file and found that 2 businesses were using scales that had not been tested since 2014.

If weighing and measuring devices are not inspected regularly, consumers could pay for amounts of products they are not receiving, or businesses may not be receiving all the revenue due them from sales, as a result of uninspected weighing and measuring devices that are not calibrated properly.

Furthermore, we discovered through our testing, interviews with DOS inspectors, and observations of the inspection process that DOS did not maintain a centralized list of weighing and measuring devices to ensure that they were all inspected during the calendar year.

Authoritative Guidance

Section 33A of Chapter 98 of the Massachusetts General Laws states that DOS must annually test all weighing and measuring devices in towns with 5,000 or fewer inhabitants according to the most recent federal census.

Reasons for Noncompliance

DOS’s director⁴ stated that he did not have enough staff members to fulfill the inspection requirements and pointed out that the number of DOS inspectors had decreased from 13 in 2016 to 10 as of the end of the audit period because 3 employees had retired. He added that the area most affected by the retirements was western Massachusetts, where most of the state’s towns with 5,000 or fewer inhabitants are located.

We also determined that DOS did not have adequate internal controls over this activity; lacked policies and procedures for the annual inspection of weighing and measuring devices; and lacked a mechanism to effectively monitor this activity, such as an electronic record / database of inspections that could be easily reviewed and used to administer the inspection process properly.

Recommendations

1. DOS should establish policies and procedures regarding the annual inspection of weighing and measuring devices in communities with 5,000 or fewer inhabitants.
2. DOS should establish a mechanism, such as an electronic database, that will enable it to effectively monitor compliance with these requirements.

Auditee’s Response

In response to this issue, DOS’s director stated that he believed that many of the 42 towns where it had no inspection reports on file did not have any commercial devices that needed to be inspected. DOS also stated that in several of these towns, school scales were tested, but that they do not have to be tested every year because they are not commercial devices.

Auditor’s Reply

Our report does not assert that all of the 42 towns with no inspection reports had commercial devices that should have been inspected. Rather, as noted above, we selected a sample of businesses to visit from this population of 42 towns, visiting 10 businesses in 10 of these towns to determine whether they were using any devices that were subject to DOS inspection and, if so, what their inspection status was. During our visits, we found that 4 businesses were using weighing and measuring devices that did not have current inspection stickers. At the other 6 businesses, although there were inspection stickers on weighing and measuring devices indicating that they had been inspected, DOS had no record of the inspections, indicating a deficiency in DOS’s recordkeeping. Further, we noted other problems with DOS’s inspections. From a sample of 120 weighing and measuring devices listed on DOS inspection reports, 3 devices did not have current inspection stickers. In addition, DOS did not have a centralized list of weighing and measuring devices to ensure that they were all inspected during the calendar year. Even if, as DOS states, some of the items that we tested in our sample did not have to be inspected, we believe there are still issues with the process DOS uses to inspect weighing and measuring devices in towns with 5,000 or fewer inhabitants. Therefore, we again urge DOS to implement our recommendations on this matter.

3.    DOS places a paper seal on inspected weighing and measuring devices. These seals give information on when the device was last inspected and who inspected it.

4.    All references to DOS’s director in this report refer to Mr. Charles Carroll, who was DOS’s executive director during our audit period.

Date published:	January 31, 2019