Posted on 07/11/2008 10:28:41 AM PDT by BurbankKarl
At a time when many Los Angeles County residents are grappling with the squeeze of an economic downturn, dozens of top county government officials are tooling around in "unjustified luxury vehicles" costing taxpayers as much as $50,000 each.
More than 1,400 county workers are given take-home cars, even though some don't have official authorization to drive them, and at least 30 employees aren't paying the required taxes on the vehicles.
Meanwhile, county employees were involved in 1,852 accidents in their take-home vehicles over the past few years - with 830 accidents in 2005-06 alone that cost taxpayers $6.7 million.
The findings are among hundreds outlined in a recently released grand jury report that uncovered broad department inconsistencies and lax oversight of the county's $433 million, 12,780-vehicle fleet.
"I think this certainly demonstrates that the county has a long way to go to convince taxpayers that it has a revenue problem and not a spending problem," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
"Its chronic problems with mismanagement of its vehicle fleet is particularly frustrating given that those perks are something that most county taxpayers will never see in their own jobs."
Chief Executive Officer Bill Fujioka said Wednesday that his staff is still reviewing the grand jury's findings and will address all problems and issues that have been identified.
"We are meeting with the CEO next week to go over all the recommendations by the grand jury and then we'll develop a response to those recommendations," Auditor-Controller Wendy Watanabe said. In the report, jurors identified 51 "unjustified luxury vehicles" costing more than $30,000 each that could be considered "excessive for routine county business."
Twenty of those vehicles were being used by employees in the county's Health Department, eight among the Board of Supervisors,
High-end wheels (click to enlarge) seven in the Public Works Department, three for librarians and 13 in other departments. Jurors wrote that they also received information that some county departments were purchasing luxury sedans and high-end sport utility vehicles for top executives.
"A review of departmental vehicle inventories indicates that some departments have purchased luxury vehicles for the department director or other senior managers," jurors wrote.
"Without clear direction from the Board of Supervisors, departments do not have a strong incentive to purchase vehicles that more closely meet the business needs of the departments and are priced at a lower cost."
Supervisors Michael D. Antonovich, Don Knabe, Gloria Molina, Zev Yaroslavsky and Yvonne B. Burke could not be reached Thursday for comment.
But a spokesman for Antonovich said the board is still reviewing the findings.
"Yes, we are reviewing and we will look at the report and act accordingly, once we've had a chance to review it in its entirety," said spokesman Tony Bell.
The most expensive vehicle identified in the report was a 2007 Acura MDX worth $49,511 that is the take-home vehicle used by Assessor Rick Auerbach.
Auerbach said he paid $10,511 of his own money for the vehicle to help offset its cost, and also uses his monthly vehicle allowance, plus $50, to pay for the vehicle.
"I looked for a car that was the safest, best car I could get that would meet
L.A. County workers' cars (click to enlarge) the requirements of what I use it for," Auerbach said. "I drive approximately 25,000 miles a year throughout the county. I don't have a driver. I spend a lot of time on the road. So I looked for the car that would best meet my needs, realizing I'm driving a lot and it's been written up as a very, very safe vehicle."
Other expensive vehicles included Antonovich's 2007 Cadillac DTS at $31,663, a 2003 Lincoln LS costing $48,192 and a 2007 Toyota Highlander hybrid SUV costing $38,322.
But Bell, Antonovich's spokesman, said the jurors failed to note that Antonovich's car is among the cheapest driven by the five supervisors.
"It was purchased used with 12,000 miles on it and he pays a portion of the monthly costs," Bell said. "We're operating on the premise this is an expensive car. The audit is flawed. It's obviously not compared to the costs of the other cars."
According to information from the Board of Supervisors' Executive Office, Knabe drives a 2008 Hybrid Chevy Tahoe that cost $57,134, while Burke drives a 2006 Chrysler 300 that cost $37,854 and Molina drives a 2007 Buick Lucerne that cost $32,409.
Yaroslavsky drives a 2000 Buick Park Avenue, Internal Services Department fleet car.
Jurors found that the county's largest departments have 1,471 take-home vehicles, including 75 for deputies and other employees of the Board of Supervisors.
While many of the take-home vehicles are for employees who may need to respond to an emergency after normal work hours, others are a benefit as part of an employee's compensation package.
Generally, senior department managers are given county vehicles for personal use to drive home and to work.
But jurors wrote that some departments have inconsistent take-home-vehicle policies, which also places the vehicles at heightened risk of abuse or theft.
"Without formal justification, some take-home privileges may not be appropriate since there is minimal review and oversight to ensure adequate business need," jurors wrote.
Jurors noted that 27 Fire Department employees didn't have proper authorizations to have the vehicles, and fire officials said they are reviewing the report's findings.
"We are looking into any alleged violations of that policy to see if appropriate follow-up action is necessary or if someone was operating under approval from an intermediate-level manager or commander," Fire Department Chief P. Michael Freeman said.
Jurors also found there are no controls to ensure that county employees with take-home-vehicle privileges report that as income to the Internal Revenue Service.
Jurors found that 965 of the 1,414 employees with take-home vehicles did not report the perk to the IRS, although auditors were unable to determine exactly how many of those are not required to report because they are public safety officials or have other exemptions.
Auditors were able to pinpoint, however, 12 Fire Department employees - including Freeman - and 18 Coroner's Office employees who should have reported the perk to the IRS.
"Based on the information reviewed, one of the 12 employees with an unmarked vehicle was the fire chief," jurors wrote.
"While this is a small number, it raises questions regarding the accuracy of the reporting in other departments and potential data inaccuracies."
Freeman said he checked with his accountant and his vehicle was reported as income to the IRS.
"When that came out, it just shocked me," Freeman said. "As part of the department head security package, I declare through the standard W-2 the income value of the vehicle. But it doesn't appear on the list here in the department they looked at as far as take-home vehicles."
Freeman said the other 11 employees' tax reporting status currently is being evaluated.
"We are going to take this very seriously and we are going to ensure that everyone in the department is in compliance," Freeman said.
"And if there is any wrongdoing, we'll address that, too."
Jurors recommended that the supervisors adopt a simple, countywide vehicle policy that would define when take-home vehicles are justified.
It also would ensure that employees are paying taxes on the benefit, and require departments to track and monitor after-hour vehicle usage to ensure sufficient county business to justify the benefit.
They also recommended that the board amend the county code to establish criteria for standard vehicle types and require departments to seek board approval for vehicles costing more than $30,000.
Coupal said the findings are a wake-up call to taxpayers.
"I would say it would be poetic justice if some of these public employees were dinged by federal tax agencies for failing to declare the vehicles as a benefit for which they have to pay a tax," he said.
"This is the kind of thing people need to keep in mind the next time the county claims poverty."
“Yes, we are reviewing and we will look at the report and act accordingly”....
Of course you will!....then put it in the round file...
All government “officials” (local,state,federal) should be driving a Ford Focus or similar car, unless security is a factor...............
“I think this certainly demonstrates that the county has a long way to go to convince taxpayers that it has a revenue problem and not a spending problem,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
—
Luxury cars for me
but not for thee
hell of a note, that.
Who woulda thunk it?
All animals are equal...except some animals are more equal than others.
They’re democrats...their corruption doesn’t count
Ah yes!...the prestige and perks of a guv’mt job, just let the taxpayer grab his ankles!.....
Nope. Kia Rio or Toyota Yaris or maybe a nice Smart Car or Tata. Or, even better, can we import a bunch of old East German Trabants and see how much horsepower they’ve got left over after being upgraded to California emission and safety standards?
}:-)4
I’m shocked, SHOCKED, that gov employees would take advantage of the people’s largess during a state economic disaster.
Something very, very harsh and direct will have to be done to clean out the rat's nest of political hacks and camp following bureaucrats.
“Nope. Kia Rio or Toyota Yaris or maybe a nice Smart Car or Tata...”
I agree. I would like to see these Ya Ya’s driving around in TaTa’s....after all, they preach “green” 24/7 to us.
Considering that government functions somewhat like a charity, they would be allowed the authorized IRS allowance of 14¢ per mile. In the rare instances where the employee can document performing anything positive, the standard 58.5 cents p/m would apply. No travel other than documented government business would be authorized.
You just watch, this will be swept under the rug, with every government official justifying this thievery. And nothing will change. These government officials are a bunch of crooks.
“No travel other than documented government business would be authorized”.....
And there’s the big fly in the soup!....No more Vegas getaways...
Don’t worry, L.A. county will solve this problem by buying more cars... count on it.
Why the H_ll do they get a vehicle in the first place. When my wife was a visiting nurse she used her own vehicle and got paid for mileage.Our local govt. cars are Ford Taurus’s, and I’m not happy about that. Someone out there needs to raise cain!
Reporting Pablo Guzman
NEW YORK (CBS) ― You may not realize it, but members of the House of Representatives can lease a car and have it paid for by you -- the taxpayer. And it's not just the car, but gas, registration, insurance … the works.
And as CBS 2 HD found out, there's no limit on how much they can spend.
Congressman Charles Rangel was recently seen getting out of his Cadillac DeVille, which he leases for $774 per month. Then there was Congressman Jose Serrano, getting out of his Buick LaCrosse, which he leases for $317 per month. And how about this one: Congressman Gregory Meeks was recently seen waiting for Congressman John Conyers to step out of Meeks' Lexus LS460, which Meeks leases for $998 per month.
All those leases are picked up by taxpayers through a little-known program available only to members of the House of Representatives.
You can probably just imagine the kind of reaction CBS 2 HD got from everyday citizens outside Meeks' Jamaica, Queens office.
"They should all drive cheaper cars, why not?" Richard Candelario said. "I mean, you know, they're making the money. I mean, we shouldn't pay for their cars."
Members of the House who choose to lease through the program have had a great deal of leeway. Congressman Anthony Weiner of Brooklyn, for example, leases a 2008 Chevy impala for $219/month. Congressman Ed Towns of Brooklyn used to lease a Lincoln for $845 per month, but switched to a 2008 mini-SUV made by Lincoln, the MKX, which costs $715 per month.
Rangel spoke to CBS 2 HD by phone about the seemingly extravagant expenses being racked up on the taxpayers' dime:
CBS 2 HD: "How would you answer those people who say, 'Well, but it's taxpayer money. Instead of $700 a month, could you find something for, say, $300 a month?'"
Rangel: "I could probably find something for ... one of those red cars and then I think my constituents would say, 'With all the money that he gets, this is the respect he shows us?'"
Earlier, Rangel released a statement, further addressing the issue.
"When I'm in New York, my car is my office. I use it to conduct Congressional business. It really pleases me that (my constituents) appreciate driving in a comfortable car, especially the senior citizens," Rangel said.
"The car isn't just a vehicle for getting around; it's an important part of doing my job and my constituents appreciate it."
Taxpayers CBS 2 HD spoke with were not buying that rationale.
"I drive a Toyota RAV and I feel that he could drive a Toyota RAV and probably lease it for $200," taxpayer Cathy Kraut said.
Of the 42 Congressmen in New Jersey and New York about a dozen participate in the leasing program.
The U.S. Senate does not permit its members to lease cars with public money.
</liberal thought>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.