Investigation of the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

F. ABUSE OF PUBLIC RESOURCESPersonal Use of Waterfront Commission VehiclesThe Waterfront Commission lacked an official written policy regarding vehicleusage, and Commission officials gave conflicting answers when asked about the vehicleuse policy. The Inspector General found that senior employees were granted unrestricteduse of Commission vehicles, and gasoline was purchased with Commission funds withoutregard to business or personal use of the vehicle. In fact, the Commission failed toaccount for personal use of Commission vehicles as required by federal tax laws.Then-Assistant Chief of Police McGowan testified to a class system for the use ofvehicles, which he stated was “a standing policy that was always in effect.” McGowanstated that while he was acting chief, the policy was written and distributed to themembers of the Police Division. The Inspector General requested a copy of any suchvehicle-use memorandum, but the Commission did not provide any written evidence ofthe existence of such a policy, formal or informal. In any event, neither the generalcounsel nor the executive director ever approved such a policy, which is standardprocedure.McGowan informed the Inspector General that, according to the unofficial policy,class “A” users were entitled to unrestricted use of the Waterfront Commission vehicle,including transport of family members. The Commission’s class “A” users were theexecutive director, general counsel, the chief of police, the assistant chief of police,captains, and lieutenants. McGowan stated that as long as the individual carried hisWaterfront Commission mobile phone, that person was considered “on duty.” Therefore,that person could use the vehicle for “anything,” including personal business on days-offand weekends. In addition, gasoline and tolls were paid for by the WaterfrontCommission, even when the vehicle was being driven for personal use.Class “B” users were detectives assigned to task forces. In addition to businessuse, these individuals were permitted to use their Commission vehicles to commute toand from work. Class “C” vehicles were stored at Waterfront Commission locations andused only by detectives during the regular course of business. All classifications includedcredit cards with which to purchase gasoline.Contrary to McGowan’s testimony, De Maria and Madonna both testified that theCommission vehicles were not to be used for personal business. While Madonna testifiedthat this policy was always in effect, De Maria testified that he believed personal use wasonly prohibited after the enactment of the Commission’s ethics manual in 2005, whichcontained a general provision restricting use of Waterfront Commission property toofficial business. Prior to the adoption of the ethics manual, De Maria stated that it waspermissible to use his Commission vehicle, as well as Commission-purchased gasoline,for personal use. That assertion notwithstanding, De Maria continued to commute in hisvehicle after the adoption of the ethics manual.46