Audit of the Massachusetts Environmental Police (MEP)
April 21, 2020 · Massachusetts Environmental Police · Read the full official report on mass.gov ↗
Published April 21, 2020 Audit covers July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2018 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023
source
“In this performance audit, we examined certain aspects of MEP’s administration of overtime for its law enforcement officers, including overtime authorization, payment, and documentation, as well as whether overtime was distributed equitably.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a state performance audit of the Massachusetts Environmental Police covering July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018.
“I am pleased to provide this performance audit of the Massachusetts Environmental Police.”
Auditors looked at whether overtime was properly authorized, paid, documented, and distributed fairly.
“Does MEP ensure that environmental police officer (EPO) overtime is authorized and provided in accordance with its “MEP Overtime” policy; Section 30C of Chapter 149 of the General Laws; and Sections 7.1(B) and 7.3 of its unit 5 collective bargaining agreement (CBA)?”
Poor overtime controls can lead to unnecessary costs and make it harder to prove that public money was spent properly.
“Not ensuring that officers adhere to all overtime approval requirements creates a higher-than-acceptable risk of incurring unnecessary overtime costs.”
For residents, this matters because the agency enforces environmental, boating, and recreational vehicle laws, and its payroll uses public resources.
“The Environmental Police is the primary enforcement agency of the Commonwealth’s boating and recreational vehicle laws and regulations.”
The auditor found problems in five areas: overtime approval, dispatch records, possible improper overtime, split shifts, and overtime rosters.
“MEP officers may have improperly received as much as $42,623 in overtime.”
The report recommends stronger written procedures, better monitoring, improved records, and clearer overtime tracking.
“MEP should establish monitoring controls to ensure that these procedures are followed.”
The audit is significant because weak records and approvals made it difficult to confirm that overtime was necessary, properly approved, and fairly distributed.
“As a result of these issues, MEP cannot effectively track its officers’ vehicle locations or the hours worked by officers who do not properly record their duty information in the dispatch records.”
The dispatch system is the record system officers use during shifts; it should show when officers start, end, and update duty status.
“The Information Management Corporation Computer-Aided Dispatch system is the computerized dispatch system MEP uses to log officers’ time and attendance throughout their work shifts.”
3 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown
What the Auditor checked
- Did not comply Does MEP ensure that environmental police officer (EPO) overtime is authorized and provided in accordance with its “MEP Overtime” policy; Section 30C of Chapter 149 of the General Laws; and Sections 7.1(B) and 7.3 of its unit 5 collective bargaining agreement (CBA)?
- Did not comply Does MEP ensure that it distributes overtime equitably in accordance with Section 7.2(I) of its unit 5 CBA?
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: This creates a higher-than-acceptable risk of unnecessary overtime costs.
Standard: MEP overtime approval forms and procedures requiring documented approval for overtime.
2 recommendations
- MEP should develop policies and procedures to ensure that all overtime is approved and approvals are documented.
- MEP should establish monitoring controls to ensure that these procedures are followed.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "MEP has effective controls for ensuring that overtime is approved."
Auditor: "Based on its response, MEP is taking measures to improve the documentation of overtime approvals."
Why it matters: MEP could not effectively track officers’ vehicle locations or substantiate reported work hours, including overtime.
Standard: MEP’s “IMC System Use” policy and “MEP Overtime” policy. ( Section 4 of MEP’s “IMC System Use” policy; Section 2.6.1 of MEP’s “MEP Overtime” policy )
1 recommendation
- MEP should enhance its policies and procedures, adding a monitoring component that requires a review of dispatch activity at officers’ homes, regular work locations, and overtime locations.agency: already implemented
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "To address these IT challenges and strengthen existing procedures, MEP has implemented the following improvements:"
Auditor: "Based on its response, MEP is taking measures to address our concerns in this area."
Why it matters: MEP may have incurred unnecessary overtime costs.
Standard: Section 2.4 of the “MEP Overtime” policy and Section 30C of Chapter 149 of the General Laws. ( Section 2.4 of the “MEP Overtime” policy; Section 30C of Chapter 149 of the Massachusetts General Laws )
1 recommendation
- MEP should create policies and procedures, including a monitoring component, to ensure that officers receive overtime pay in compliance with its policy.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "MEP has policies and procedures to ensure officers receive overtime pay in compliance with policy, the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and governing law."
Auditor: "Based on its response, MEP is taking measures to address our concerns in this area."
Why it matters: MEP may have improperly paid overtime to officers.
Standard: Section 7.1(B) of the unit 5 collective bargaining agreement and the Colonel’s December 12, 2016 memo. ( Section 7.1(B) of the unit 5 collective bargaining agreement; Memo from MEP’s Colonel dated December 12, 2016 )
1 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.agency: disagreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "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."
Auditor: "We again urge MEP to implement our recommendation."
Why it matters: MEP could not ensure that overtime was distributed equitably.
Standard: Section 7.2(I) of the unit 5 collective bargaining agreement. ( Section 7.2(I) of the unit 5 collective bargaining agreement )
1 recommendation
- MEP should enhance its overtime policy to include the requirement that accurate overtime rosters be maintained in each facility where MEP officers are employed and also include any other procedures MEP deems necessary to ensure the equitable distribution of overtime.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Recognizing the distributed nature of the MEP workforce and the lack of any appropriate facilities in which to post paper rosters, neither the Union nor the MEP has sought to utilize traditional "rosters" to achieve the goal of equitable and impartial distribution of overtime for at least thirty years."
Auditor: "Based on its response, MEP is taking measures to address our concerns in this area."
Verified dollar findings
Estimated or sample-projected amounts - shown separately because they are not a hard-identified dollar figure.