The unit that manages the Montgomery County police department’s automated speed enforcement program has taken a “lax” approach to oversight of the contractor hired to deliver the cameras, resulting in overpayments and concerns about the program’s integrity, according to a report released to the public Monday by the county inspector general’s office.
The review is the second from the inspector general’s office in less than a year regarding the department’s oversight of the program. In March 2024, the office released an audit report that found the department had not properly overseen the contractors that handle red-light and speed camera citations. This week’s report similarly highlighted the office’s concerns about lost revenue for the department, specifically $2.5 million from overpaying invoices.
“The review was predicated on our findings from a [fiscal year 2024 Office of the Inspector General] audit of [the department’s] oversight and processing of billings associated with the deployment of red-light cameras. In that audit, we found that [the department] was not confirming the accuracy of invoices prior to payment,” the report said.
Monday’s report outlined three key issues:
- “The department did not consistently confirm they received the number of cameras for which they were billed before paying invoices;
- “The department does not have written policies and procedures governing daily required tests of speed cameras; and
- “The department did not monitor performance metrics outlined in the contract resulting in the county potentially overpaying for speed cameras.”
The police department did not respond to Bethesda Today’s emailed requests for comment sent Monday evening and Tuesday morning.
According to the report, the office’s review covered speed camera invoices, reports generated by the contractor’s tracking system, speed camera expense transactions, and internal Automated Traffic Enforcement Unit (ATEU) reconciliations and tracking sheets within calendar year 2023.
“We sought to evaluate [the department’s] review and approval process for speed camera invoices and related credits for speed camera functionality,” the report said. “We also attempted to assess the extent of ATEU’s oversight of the contractor’s compliance with speed camera functionality requirements per the contract.”
In addition to the findings, the office offered recommendations for addressing the issues including developing and implementing procedures that confirm the number of speed cameras in operation and for the completion and documentation of daily self-tests of cameras.
The report also included a response from county Chief Administrative Office Rich Madaleno dated Jan. 7.
He acknowledged there are “opportunities to improve contract and program administration processes” in the department’s Automated Traffic Enforcement Unit.
“Such efforts can be impacted by staffing and resources. Your report’s findings and recommendations will be useful as we continue to improve processes in the future,” Madaleno wrote. “We are committed to taking appropriate steps to address the report’s findings and recommendations.”
Report findings
While reviewing invoices regarding the number of speed cameras, the inspector general’s office found that half of the 2023 invoices did not confirm the number of cameras the department received from the contractor.
According to the report, invoices from January through June 2023 showed the contractor provided 91 cameras from month to month. However, invoices from July to December 2023 showed “varying numbers of cameras provided.” The report said the number of cameras appearing on invoices for January to June 2023 “may not have reflected the actual number of cameras in operation.”
The office recommended the department’s Automated Traffic Enforcement Unit develop and implement written procedures that document the process for confirming the number of speed cameras in operation for any given month before the department pays the related invoice.
In his response letter, Madaleno said he agreed with the recommendation and that the department would develop written procedures that confirm the number of speed cameras in operation each month by June 30.
Regarding daily tests of the speed cameras – a requirement of Maryland law – the report found that documentation was not available on the contractor’s system for 17% of the expected camera tests in 2023, according to the report.
When the office sampled handwritten paper logs, which were used by the department when the contractor’s online system did not work properly, it “found sufficient documentation to support that the daily tests were completed manually despite not being available” in the system, the report said. However, the report noted the paper logs had “inconsistencies” including incorrect dates, missing initials/signatures and incomplete quality control reviews.
“Because Maryland law requires that these records be admitted as evidence in court proceedings it is in the county’s interest that they be accurate, consistent, and fully compliant with law,” the report said. The office also noted that inconsistent documentation could lead to the automated speed enforcement program being less effective and negatively affect the program’s integrity.
The office recommended the department “develop and implement written policies and procedures to ensure that daily self-tests are completed and documented.”
Madaleno agreed with the recommendation and said the department would develop policies and procedures to ensure daily self-tests are performed and documented consistently. The department also plans to develop and implement these procedures by June 30.
In reference to concerns about the county potentially overpaying for speed cameras, the report said the county paid at least $2.5 million more than it should have for camera services in 2023. This stemmed from not monitoring contractor performance regarding camera operability and functionality, the report said. In doing so, the office said the county may have potentially “jeopardized the effectiveness” of the automated speed enforcement program.
According to the report, the contract between the county and the contractor specifies that 90% of all citations captured on the cameras “must result in citations that can be pursued for prosecution, i.e. the citations must actually be useful to law enforcement.” If that percentage is below 90%, the county can reduce the contractor’s compensation for the month.
Further review of the citations found that about 44% of citations captured were prosecutable, the report said. “This would have translated to a reduction on invoices of approximately $2.5 million” if the unit was tracking the percentage and enforcing the terms of the contract.
In addition, the report found the Automated Traffic Enforcement Unit did not track the monthly operability uptime average, which is the amount of time a camera is operational. Because of this failure, the report noted the county is “potentially missing an opportunity to assess damages for inoperable cameras.”
The office recommended the department monitor and enforce performance metrics for cameras to avoid overpaying invoices.
Madaleno again agreed with the office’s recommendation. He wrote the department planned to develop written procedures for staff regarding monitoring and enforcement of the metrics by June 30.
In a Tuesday morning email to Bethesda Today, Sharon Ledner, chief of staff for County Councilmember Sidney Katz (Dist. 3), who chairs the County Council’s Public Safety Committee, said the councilmember was still reviewing the report and “looking into next steps from Council.”
