Chapter X
DPW Organization Structure and Other Issues
During the late 80s and early 90s, all leasing and property transfer functions were found within one DPW unit. The unit contained 11 staff members including leasing and property agents, a lease compliance officer, planners, and a leasing director. Attrition, early retirements, and the state's hiring freeze reduced the number of staff available to perform these functions. Responsibilities were dispersed among existing staff. As a result, various aspects of the space acquisition function are currently handled by staff in three different DPW units. (Figure I-1 in Chapter I highlights the units involved.)
Transactions involving leased facilities are carried out by DPW's leasing unit which is supervised by the director of the Facilities Management Division. The unit consists of six individuals including: three leasing agents, one supervisor, and two support staff. This group locates and negotiates leases on behalf of other state agencies. However, requests for leased facilities are initially reviewed by one staff person in the Process Management unit within the Risk Management Division.
Purchases and sales of state property are handled by one property agent who reports to a separate deputy commissioner. The property agent works with the Office of Policy and Management to buy, convey, and/or sell property for the state.
The committee finds DPW's current organizational structure as it relates to space acquisition and disposition is disjointed. This splintered structure contributes to inefficiency and some of the problems outlined earlier in the report. These functions should be placed in one DPW unit reporting to one agency head for better oversight and management. Therefore, the program review committee recommends:
All DPW responsibilities relating to leased facilities and property acquisition be organized into one separate dedicated unit.
Working Relationship with Other Agencies
Although the Department of Public Works (DPW) was the focus of this study, the committee found it could not evaluate DPW's performance without consideration of the roles played by other agencies involved in space acquisition. As referenced throughout this report, the Office of Policy and Management, the State Properties Review Board, the Office of the Attorney General, and client agencies all play roles in the process and thus impact DPW's performance.
Interviews with staff from these various agencies indicate their overall cooperation is basically good. Nonetheless, DPW's relationship with each major player would appear to benefit from improvements in communications, streamlining of the process, and clarification of responsibilities. As mentioned earlier, initiatives are being implemented to address some of these areas including a process checklist, standardized lease contract language, and paralegal support for DPW's leasing unit. Observations of the case files and previous audits also suggest other improvements may be needed. The following is a discussion of some of these issue areas.
DPW's Annual Report to SPRB. C.G.S. § 4b-2 requires DPW to transmit an annual report to the SPRB. This report provides information and analysis on DPW real estate transactions including a listing of transactions submitted to the SPRB for approval. The report is submitted to the Governor and various legislative committees of cognizance.
The committee found a number of reporting inaccuracies in a series of DPW annual reports. The program review committee recommends:
DPW must establish better information tracking and take steps to improve its quality control with a goal of zero errors in the statutorily required reports.
Adherence to process. Each case file in the program review sample of leases, acquisitions, and sales was examined to determine the degree to which stated procedures were followed. Compliance was measured against statutory requirements, department procedures, and informal interagency agreements. It was difficult to assess adherence to certain procedural steps because either specific guidelines did not exist or were outdated. Although the committee did observe certain lack of attention to detail for some statutory requirements, the sample case files did not show evidence of serious deviation from the mandated procedures.
The committee defined serious deviation from the process as one of the participants becoming involved in a part of the process where he/she would not typically play a role. The committee did find cases where the level of management involved was more than generally required. However, these cases usually involved large complicated projects or ones experiencing legal issues where higher level management might be necessary.
Once the board has approved a proposal, the terms or conditions cannot be changed or modified without its consent. This issue was raised as a concern in a recent state auditor's report.17 The report noted three instances where a lease proposal approved by the SPRB was materially changed and resulted in the execution of a lease that contained terms that conflicted with the terms approved by the SPRB. To prevent this problem, the auditors recommended an additional review step be formally incorporated into the process which would require SPRB to sign off on the final lease.
The committee agrees and reasserts the auditor's recommendation:
The State Properties Review Board should be empowered to sign all leases prior to their final execution. SPRB shall review each lease for compliance with its decisions. All leases differing materially from the terms of SPRB decisions must be reported to the State Auditors Office for further investigation. Parties involved in transactions determined to be out of compliance should be held accountable and subjected to strict penalty and disciplinary action.
17 Auditors' Report Department of Public Works for the fiscal years ended June 30, 1997 and 1998.