PERD Director John Sylvia briefs lawmakers on a report regarding State Police purchasing procedures.

CHARLESTON — A performance review by the Legislative Auditor’s Office released Tuesday found that the West Virginia State Police has not developed procedures for how it makes purchases and is not complying with guidelines.

The Legislative Auditor’s Performance Evaluation and Research Division report was presented to the Post Audits Committee during the second day of legislative interim meetings.

According to the report, the State Police requested an exemption from Purchasing Division policies in July 2017. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 461 in 2017, exempting the State Police from Purchasing Division requirements that other state agencies have to abide by.

Since receiving that exemption, the State Police has not developed any formal policies or procedures to govern purchasing decisions.

“The State Police informed PERD that it does not have written purchasing policies and procedures,” the audit report stated. “The State Police’s inconsistency in its response is concerning because it demonstrates a lack of commitment to any purchasing standard, which is crucial to the proper use of taxpayer funds.”

The report documents instances where verbal directives for purchasing were accepted instead of requiring a signature. Instead, the State Police relied on the expertise of its four-person purchasing staff to monitor purchases.

“According to the State Police, ‘a dollar is not spent without one of the staff members knowing about it,'” the report stated. “The State Police’s comment in this regard is well-meaning; however, it does not negate the fact that there is a need for written policies and procedures … basing purchasing practices and decisions on verbal communication is an inadequate internal control system.”

The purchasing staff has not undergone training on the few policies and procedures the State Police dose have. While officers at the troop level supervise purchasing card use, the headquarters in Charleston has a little role in oversight.

On June 22, 2018, the Legislative Auditor’s Office requested the State Police’s purchasing policies and procedures.

After nearly a year of back-and-forth letters between the two offices, the State Police admitted June 4 of this year that as of May it did not have any procedures and no timeline.

“Given the inadequacies of the procedural guidelines, it is important for the State Police to complete written purchasing procedures specific to the agency,” the report stated. “During the audit, PERD periodically inquired on the status of the agency’s written purchasing procedures. At each instance, the agency did not give an indication of any progress made. In the Legislative Auditor’s opinion, this is concerning since the law requires PERD to review the agency’s purchasing procedures and there has been nothing to review.”

The audit goes on to say that the State Police also doesn’t follow the limited, minimum purchasing guidelines it does have on hand, including bidding guidelines, improper use of forms, and lack of authorizing signatures.

“The Performance Evaluation and Research Division reviewed random samples of 2018 State Police purchases to determine the agency’s compliance with its procedural guidelines,” the report stated. “In short, there were few sampled transactions that were in complete compliance with the agency’s limited guidelines. The lack of compliance is attributed to a lack of clear written policies and procedures, and enforcement of those procedures. The State Police’s current purchasing practices increase the risk of waste, fraud and abuse.”

The Legislative Auditor’s Office recommends that the State Police make creating purchasing rules and regulations a top priority, make sure purchasing staff are trained in the new procedures and monitor purchasing practices.

State Police Captain Shallon Oglesby, in a written response to the report submitted Sept. 10, disputed the Legislative Auditor’s Office report.

“Although there is no manual, all purchases go through several checks and balances with signature approvals on the (purchasing) card and purchasing side, and then accounting reviews the purchase before payment is approved and submitted for payment to the (State) auditor’s office,” Ogleby wrote.

“We have continued following the same procedures we were following before our exemption,” Ogleby said. “We have continued to follow the same guidelines we were following while under State Purchasing (Division), realizing that a purchasing manual is needed to address our procedures and we have drafted a procedural manual.”

During Tuesday’s committee meeting, PERD Director John Sylvia said the State Police provided additional information and documentation, but the State Police still were not in compliance.

“Although PERD retrieved more documentation the from the exit conference our conclusions and findings remain the same,” Sylvia said. “A multi-million dollar agency that does not have written policies and procedures for purchasing increases the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. To rely strictly on institutional knowledge, once that initial knowledge has gone, people resign, the retire, and verbal directives can be misinterpreted, misunderstood, or forgotten. Those increase the risk of fraud and abuse.”

Addressing the committee, State Police Maj. Reginald Patterson said that the State Police is taking the issue seriously and working on purchasing procedures.

“We’ve looked at the different documentation and we have to agree with the fact that we should have had a clearer guideline,” Patterson said. “We are in the process of establishing what that is.”