Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee

1999 Annual Report
Compliance:  Implementation of Prior Recommendations

            The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee annually reviews state agency compliance with the recommendations contained in its completed reports.  Findings concerning the implementation status of proposed corrective actions are reported to the General Assembly each year in the committee’s annual report.

            Administrative improvements achieved during 1999 in response to the recommendations contained in 14 recently completed studies are described in this chapter.  Legislation adopted during the 1999 session that implements committee proposals for statutory changes is also summarized for each study. 

Brownfields In Connecticut (1998)

            In 1998, the program review committee looked at state efforts to deal with abandoned or underutilized sites with real or perceived environmental problems, also known as brownfields.  As part of the study, the committee clarified what is meant by the word "brownfields," determined the programs and tools available to assist in the identification and remediation of environmentally contaminated properties, and examined the roles of the governmental entities and private parties involved in solving problems associated with brownfields.

            The committee found Connecticut already had in place many of the key tools and programs considered important for dealing with brownfields.  However, many were new, and additional time was needed to fully assess their success.  As a result, the recommendations of the committee focused on clarifying statutory provisions and fine-tuning operating procedures for specific programs.

            The table below summarizes the recommendations contained in the report.  It also lists legislative changes enacted as a result of the study and describes actions taken by the Department of Economic and Community Development and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to comply with the recommendations.

 Department of Environmental Protection Enforcement Policies and Procedures (1998)

The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee authorized a study of the Department of Environmental Protection’s enforcement policies and practices in March of 1998.  The study centered on two primary areas of concern.  One area related to specific circumstances occurring at the department beginning when former Commissioner Sidney J. Holbrook took office in 1995.  The other area of concern is the overall operation of the enforcement program and how it is implemented. 

               Former Commissioner Holbrook adopted “user-friendly” as the catchword for the overall approach to dealing with the regulated community.  A key feature of this approach was to seek a consensual resolution to violations where possible.  The committee found the administration was lax in providing the necessary guidance to staff in implementing this shift in policy, and was either inattentive or indifferent to staff confusion and concerns and the subsequent effects on enforcement.  The department’s administration maintains the "user-friendly" posture was never intended to replace traditional enforcement, but to instill a greater degree of professionalism and courtesy among staff. 

            Further intensifying the concerns about the direction of environmental enforcement during the Holbrook years were the activities of the commissioner’s former executive assistant and charges of undue influence.  The committee found while this executive assistant was more active in regulatory cases than had been officially described by the department, and was at times a disruptive influence in cases, he did not ultimately affect the outcome of enforcement cases.   

            In addition to the above findings, the committee focused on general enforcement matters and the overall operation of the enforcement program.  The committee found there was some measure of animosity between certain employees at DEP, on the staff and management levels, which has had a negative effect on enforcement efforts at DEP beyond the people directly involved.  Further, the committee found DEP management had not exerted sufficient leadership to address these issues effectively.   

            In its review of DEP, the committee also found problems relating to the department’s statutory and administrative civil penalty policies.  The Department is required by law to develop regulations to impose civil penalties through the use of unilateral orders.  The committee found that DEP has not developed the necessary regulations in the five years since the statute was enacted.  Moreover, the committee found the department’s administrative civil penalty policy, used in developing penalty amounts for consent orders, does not provide adequate guidance to staff to assure outcomes are appropriate or consistent. 

            Finally, the program review committee found a number of shortcomings related to basic management tools and processes at the department.  Specifically, the committee found: 

            ·       enforcement case documentation is insufficient;
            ·       DEP has no systematic way of tracking compliance with enforcement actions and there are           inconsistent practices among the regulatory bureaus in closing out enforcement actions;
            ·       an inadequate management information system that limits the department’s oversight of                 enforcement actions;
            ·       enforcement actions are not completed in a timely manner; and
            ·       in a number of instances the actions of the department were at variance with the stated policies   and usual practices of the department. 

            The table below summarizes the recommendations contained in the report.  It also lists legislative changes enacted as a result of the study and describes actions taken by the Department of Environmental Protection to comply with the recommendations. 

            In most areas, the department has made some progress in addressing the committee’s recommendations.  It has taken a number of steps in revising necessary policies and procedures, and begun planning for several other longer-term management improvement projects.  Moreover, the department has expressed its continuing commitment to improvement by establishing the Office of Enforcement Policy and Coordination (OEPC) to: systematically revise enforcement and penalty policies and procedures; provide oversight of enforcement activities across bureaus; and oversee other changes recommended by this committee and the federal Environmental Protection Agency.   

            However, much more needs be implemented to effectuate the changes recommended by the committee and required in legislation.  Thus far, the day-to-day operation of the enforcement programs, especially in the areas of case tracking and ensuring enforcement consistency, have been largely unaffected by the department accomplishments. 

            The department has missed a number of deadlines required under PA 99-225 relating to: its intent to adopt regulations for administrative civil penalties; the development of a file management system; and reporting on the timeliness of enforcement actions and variances to department policy.  DEP maintains that due to the complexity of developing environmental regulations it was not able to meet the deadline to publish its intent, but will do so soon.  In addition, it is awaiting development of an information management system to report on timeliness of actions and assist in file management efforts.  Finally, the department believes the new enforcement response policy, adopted last June, along with other changes will reduce the number of variances to policy and will be in a better position to analyze variances after a full year of the new policy’s implementation. 

The committee believes that the development of a comprehensive information management system is a key element in better managing the department’s workload.  It will, in all likelihood, take years for a system to be fully developed.  However, certain changes need not wait that long.  For example, the department could begin to report on the timeliness of some actions.  Completed formal enforcement actions (i.e., referrals, consent orders, and unilateral orders) represent a relatively small, yet important, portion of the department’s overall caseload and whose timeliness could be tracked by each individual program. 

The program review committee recognizes the progress made to-date and the complexities inherent in implementing the recommendations, but anticipates many more tangible changes, as described by the department, by the next compliance review. 

 Elderly Transportation Services (1998)

            The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee voted to study elderly transportation services in March 1998.  The study examined access and availability of publicly funded dial-a-ride programs targeted to the elderly and provided by transit districts and municipalities.  Overall the committee found: 

            ·      no state agency has responsibility for program oversight because there is no state mandate for     dial-a-ride programs for the elderly;
            ·      no single funding source exists -- funding is a patchwork of federal, state, and local monies;
            ·      multiple delivery models exist making identification of programs problematic; and
            ·      the provision of dial-a-ride services for the elderly is largely driven by local concerns and        delivered by municipalities or transit districts. 

The committee found no regional approach to funding or delivery of dial-a-ride services could be mandated because, although there are 15 transit districts in the state, not all towns belong to a district.  An extensive survey conducted by the committee shows transit districts provide dial-a-ride in 62 towns, 97 towns operate their own programs, and 10 towns do not offer a publicly funded dial-a-ride program to their elderly residents. 

            The committee also found the Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) provided financial support to some towns and transit districts, for the operation of elderly dial-a-ride programs, while other towns must rely solely on their own funds.  Although the use of federal and state transportation funds for dial-a-ride programs in some towns is based on historical funding patterns, this has led to broad funding inequities among towns in Connecticut.  Specifically, 90 towns benefit in some way from federal or state transportation dollars to operate dial-a-ride programs, while 79 towns do not. 

            The committee made seven recommendations -- five legislative and two administrative. All of the committee’s legislative recommendations were adopted into Public Act 99-265, with minor modifications.  A key legislative recommendation was  establishment of a town-based grant program administered by ConnDOT, within available appropriation, for dial-a-ride programs for the elderly.  Although a program was established under P.A. 99-265, no funding was appropriated. 

            In addition, the act strengthens ConnDOT’s planning and oversight role over special transportation services provided to elderly and disabled persons, and requires DOT to report semi-annually on two sections of the statutes that require DOT coordinate paratransit services but were never fully implemented.  The act also transfers the functions of the never-active Connecticut Transportation Advisory Council to the Connecticut Public Transportation Commission and expands the commission’s membership to include a person aged 60 or older. 

            The committee’s administrative recommendations formalize the selection process for the Section 5310 grant program, which funds the purchase of vehicles used in paratransit transportation programs.  Finally, the committee recommended ConnDOT improve its oversight of the grant program by field auditing grantees. 

            The committee finds ConnDOT has still not implemented several statutory provisions that give it broad authority over transportation planning and oversight.  For example, as noted in the committee’s report, C.G.S. Sec. 13b-4c requires: 

The commissioner of ConnDOT examine state agency paratransit expenditures, prohibits any state agency other than ConnDOT from spending funds on, or providing state property in support of, any transportation program for the elderly or the handicapped unless the commissioner of Transportation certifies, in writing, that he has reviewed and concurs in such expenditure or use; such expenditure or use is consistent with the transportation policies of the state; and such expenditure or use will not result in unnecessary duplication of service.             

            In its compliance response, the department states: 

to the extent that such programs are public transportation programs, these expenditures appear in the ConnDOT operating budget….  Other state agencies have programs for which transportation is an element, but the purpose of the transportation is to give clients access to the main service being provided.  The commissioner has not reviewed transportation expenditures that are in support of the specific client programs and are not public transportation services.  The individual departments are best qualified to determine the level and quality of transportation services needed to enable their clients to access the basic level of human services.

 Open Space Acquisition (1998)

            The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee’s 1998 report on Open Space Acquisition in the state focused on the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process within the Department of Environmental Protection. The department, through its Land Acquisition and Management Division (LAMD), has the responsibility for administering the state’s primary open space acquisition program 

            Strategic planning.  More needs to be done regarding strategic planning -- especially in developing a detailed inventory of current state-owned land, identifying prospective open space opportunities within specified acquisition categories, and outlining a proactive approach for acquiring land -- before DEP has a truly targeted open space acquisition plan in place.  Acquisition priorities were primarily developed in response to properties submitted to DEP, and that the department had no formal planning process in place for prospectively identifying properties within specific land classifications. The system was predicated on responding to properties already submitted for acquisition rather than identifying properties that fit into a well-defined strategic plan and proactively seeking those open space opportunities. 

An integral component in achieving a strategic open space plan is having comprehensive information regarding the state’s inventory of open space land.  As such, state law requires DEP to maintain and periodically update a list of its acquisitions.  The department maintained a list of properties it acquires, which complies with the law, but the list was found to be not as comprehensive as it could be for planning purposes.  For example, the list did not indicate the amount of land owned either within geographic areas throughout the state or within particular land classifications categories in any aggregate format.  Further, the list was kept in a word processing format not allowing for any meaningful management analysis or reporting. 

Acquisition process.  The committee’s study revealed an inordinate amount of time was spent initially processing properties submitted as open space, compared to the overall review and evaluation process.  Further, the land acquisition division did not have standards in place to guide the length of time necessary to complete the review and evaluation process of properties submitted for acquisition. 

            The program review committee also found instances when the department did not follow its own internal review and evaluation procedures when considering prospective open space properties.  Despite this, the department continued to move properties through the acquisition process and approve them for acquisition, questioning the need for those procedures. 

Based on formal interviews and correspondence found in property files, the committee concluded the negotiation phase of the acquisition process takes an unreasonably lengthy time to complete.  The time necessary to obtain funding from the bond commission, however, which was highlighted as a problem throughout the study, did not seem excessive compared to the timeliness of the overall acquisition process.  The larger problem with the bond commission was the unpredictability of funding for acquisitions.  The committee believes this issue has been resolved, however, given the commission’s new requirement to release open space funds to DEP twice a year. 

            The program review committee also found that several review cycles were required between the attorney general’s office and DEP regarding legal documents required for acquisitions, which lengthened overall process timeliness.  In addition, a procedure used by DEP to obtain services from private surveyors was found to be inefficient.  Unlike practices used by other state agencies, the land division does not use an approved bidder’s list for selecting surveyors.  Instead, a competitive bidding procedure is used when surveying services are needed.
 

Internal operations.  The open space acquisition process used by the division was paper-driven and highly manual.  An automated accounting of the full process does not exist in any centralized location within the division.  As a result, any meaningful analysis from a management perspective was limited.  The division, however, recognized this deficiency and formally requested a revamped automation system, which is currently being reviewed by the department.

        The committee also found no complete performance information available within the land division regarding overall case flow timeliness.  There was limited performance monitoring for analysis purposes, and standards or benchmarks of acceptable practices did not exist within the division.  The division also lacked a set of clearly defined policies and procedures to guide its overall acquisition process.  As such, division staff had different levels of understanding as to the existing procedures required when acquiring property for open space purposes.