Investigation of the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

Recommendations

Info

In response to the Inspector General’s request for records related to the boat, theWaterfront Commission provided only 37 Police Division Marine Unit Daily Logs,dating from October 2, 2006 to May 25, 2008. A review of the boat logs indicated thatthe boat was used sparingly and irregularly. The logs reveal approximately 129 enginehours during the 19-month period, or approximately 6.7 hours of usage per month. 31Numerous members of the Waterfront Commission who had knowledge of theboat and its operations expressed their doubts about the value of the purchase. Moreimportantly, many said that the boat, when it is run, is utilized to escort guests and VIPsduring such events as Fleet Week. Allegations regarding the boat’s infrequent use werepublished in the Daily News on May 18, 2009. 32 The Inspector General’s examination ofdaily usage logs showed that the boat was used almost every day during Fleet Week inMay 2007 and May 2008, even though the boat was typically used only a few times permonth during the rest of the year.The daily boat logs do not reflect the purpose of the day’s voyage, and the formitself does not include a field for entering this information. The form does include aspace to list any “guests” aboard the boat, but this field was filled out on only oneinstance, indicating that two FBI officers, and an unnamed “+1” were aboard.The Inspector General will forward its findings regarding the Commission’s“Project Safe Port” grant to the Department of Homeland Security for action as it deemsappropriate.The Waterfront Commission Did Not Properly Account for Overtime ExpendituresAccording to the agreements with the various federal task forces in which theCommission participates, the Commission is to be reimbursed by the task forces forovertime expenditures incurred by participating Commission detectives. The InspectorGeneral found that the Waterfront Commission failed to properly track suchreimbursements, and therefore could not ensure that all outstanding debts to the agencywere paid. In addition, the Commission overstated the amount of overtime expendituresdevoted to non-task-force police assignments, and unnecessarily limited overtimeavailable to employees who were not assigned to a task force.Comptroller Wolf deposited overtime reimbursements into the general bankaccount and recorded them as revenue, specifically “other income.” The funds were thenmixed with other funds and devoted to general operating expenses.All requests for the Police Division overtime were handled by Police DivisionSecretary Carol Lorenz, who maintained a log for the assigned officers. Lorenz wasgiven bank statements to identify deposits of overtime reimbursement from outsideagencies and to summarize them in a memorandum to the comptroller. When the31 The engine hours are akin to an automobile’s odometer reading, i.e., to determine usage and the need forpreventative maintenance.32 John Marzulli, “Homeland Security Monday to Waterfront Commission Spent on Boat That’s Useless inWinter,” Daily News (New York), May 18, 2009.55
comptroller received this information, it was used to identify overtime reimbursements.However, Wolf did not subtract the reimbursements from his total accounting of overtimeexpenditures by the Commission.Wolf excused this failure by claiming that such reimbursements were difficult totrack. Wolf claimed that the reimbursements are not always made in the year in whichthey occur and sometimes may take up to two years before they are received by theWaterfront Commission. Wolf stated that he ignored the reimbursements because theywere not “materially significant.” He estimated that reimbursable overtime was not morethan 20 percent of the Waterfront Commission’s total overtime payments and felt that itwas not necessary to track it.The Waterfront Commission’s overtime records revealed that, contrary to Wolf’sstatements, overtime reimbursements from the federal government were significant andmaterial. Over the last two fiscal years, July 2006 to June 2008, the WaterfrontCommission requested reimbursement from the federal government for almost two-thirdsof its total overtime expenditures. During those two years, the Waterfront Commissionexpended $250,695 for overtime and requested reimbursements of $164,166 (65.48%)from three federal agencies to which its detectives were assigned.Failure to Issue Statutorily-Required Annual ReportsThe Waterfront Commission is required to submit annual reports to the governorsof New York and New Jersey. When the Inspector General started its review, theWaterfront Commission was more than three to four years behind in issuing reports.De Maria was asked about the lack of annual reports. He acknowledged that thereports are statutorily required and that the 2004-2005 report was the last report issued.De Maria stated that the Waterfront Commission fell behind and could not catch up.Throughout the years, different people were given the task of writing the reports. DeMaria also blamed staff turnover and the time it takes to get the necessary data from theLicensing Division. According to Arsenault, however, the necessary data was readilyavailable.The commissioners stated that they would repeatedly ask De Maria for thereports; De Maria consistently responded that they were forthcoming. Deutsch was askedwhy the reports were so far behind; he responded that it was because of “laziness [and]lack of management.”The Commission reported to the Inspector General that it planned to issue anannual report this year for the first time since 2005.Recent Changes Regarding Fiscal ManagementSince the onset of the Inspector General’s investigation, the Commission hastaken a number of steps to improve control over the agency’s accounts and expenditures.56
Page 1 and 2:
State of New YorkOffice of the Insp
Page 3 and 4:
STAFF FOR THIS INVESTIGATION AND RE
Page 5 and 6:
Personal Use of Waterfront Commissi
Page 7 and 8:
mandated core responsibilities. 2 T
Page 9 and 10: enforcement officer, he was hired a
Page 11 and 12: II. BACKGROUNDHistoryIn the early 1
Page 13 and 14: Commission regulates the employment
Page 15 and 16: There was virtually no communicatio
Page 17 and 18: and, therefore, the Waterfront Comm
Page 19 and 20: did identify individual instances o
Page 21 and 22: Maria that he “should have been m
Page 23 and 24: Q.: Why did it change?Deutsch: Beca
Page 25 and 26: all the things that has gone on wit
Page 27 and 28: Police Division. That testimony not
Page 29 and 30: had been completed within the curre
Page 31 and 32: epercussions of his felony convicti
Page 33 and 34: Michael DeCotiis testified to the I
Page 35 and 36: offending companies, although Kelly
Page 37 and 38: Web sites were blocked by software
Page 39 and 40: At all of the police academies, the
Page 41 and 42: epresenting the Waterfront Commissi
Page 43 and 44: training facility has been created
Page 45 and 46: Madonna’s other recommended candi
Page 47 and 48: Madonna denied providing the exam t
Page 49 and 50: which car they would drive, they ne
Page 51 and 52: F. ABUSE OF PUBLIC RESOURCESPersona
Page 53 and 54: A Waterfront Commission Vehicle Was
Page 55 and 56: Wolf also attempted to disclaim res
Page 57 and 58: determining the outstanding forfeit
Page 59: non-federal share of expense, and t
Page 63 and 64: Commissioner Madonna compelled the
Page 65 and 66: Fiscal Management• The Commission
Page 67: JON S. CORZINEState GovernorOFFICE
show all

Investigation of the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?