DOT Needs to Be Shut Down

July 27, 2009 17:00 pm

by Erick · 22 comments

Wow. Governor Perdue and various legislators are coming out firing with both barrels at the Department of Transportation.

They’ve hidden billions of dollars in debt. The state audit says it may have been intentionally hidden.

Gov. Sonny Perdue, in a scathing reaction to the report, said the audit showed nothing less than an attempt to mislead his office, the General Assembly, the State Transportation Board, the agency’s commissioner and the public.

“These numbers are relied upon by legislative appropriators and the executive branch to make accurate predictions and decisions regarding future fiscal policy,” the governor said in a prepared statement. “To think that officials charged with supplying these numbers would intentionally direct those under their command to withhold information is unconscionable at best and illegal at worst.”

As some news articles, including the Atlanta Business Chronicle note, the DOT’s actions may very well be unconstitutional. Committing to construction contracts without funds on hand violates the constitution.

Time to bulldoze the DOT and start over.

{ 22 comments }

AubieTurtle July 27, 2009 at 5:09 pm

DOT is a big ol’ barrel of suck… and I mean that in oh so many ways.

Game Fan July 27, 2009 at 5:15 pm

DOT is unconstitutional? How about the Atlanta Regional commission or the Georgia toll authority?

Bill Simon July 27, 2009 at 5:42 pm

Perhaps the money was “intentionally hidden” OR perhaps it was due to the incompetence of any state department being run by the typical math-deficient graduate of UGA.

joe July 27, 2009 at 5:57 pm

“…the shortfall resulted from a DOT budgeting process that committed funds to projects before the money actually was in hand.

Some State Transportation Board members have argued that such practices are necessary to keep projects flowing smoothly.”

Everybody involved needs to be terminated. Some probably need to be prosecuted.

Prove It July 27, 2009 at 6:33 pm

Maybe the good ole boys shouldn’t have been so quick to rush gina out the door. she kept saying there was a big mess but that board liked having their own little fiefdom.

everyone one of those board members starting with Doss, Beach, and that loser from Columbus should be prosecuted. as in go to jail and do not collect $200.

chefdavid July 27, 2009 at 8:38 pm

Now is one of those people you say need to be runoft her now husband?

steelfist July 27, 2009 at 9:02 pm

Should that include Mike Evans since he served on the board?

GOPGrassroots July 28, 2009 at 7:24 am

Funny thing is how the Auditors report to the treasurer, instead of directly to the Board. This is part of the problem – poor internal controls and lack of effective leadership. This is the responsiblity of the Board and the Commissioner who are put into these positions of public trust.

Maybe if those individuals had spent more time doing their jobs, instead of pursuing each other, this could have been avoided.

David Young July 27, 2009 at 6:50 pm

I bet this will make a good commercial come next primary.

Rick Day July 27, 2009 at 6:50 pm

This

is

absolutely

unacceptable.

Billions…so…where is the money going to come from?

Yay fiscal conservatives!

ByteMe July 27, 2009 at 7:05 pm

Time to bulldoze the DOT and start over.

With Republicans — the party supposedly about competence — firmly in charge the past 8 years, how will a new-and-improved DOT look any different than the current one? Especially since the state Constitution establishes the funding model and organization.

Harry July 27, 2009 at 7:17 pm

Maybe the legislators could designate DOT as their first zero-based budgeting initiative next session. For example, DOT has district administrative staff in Atlanta assigned to each of the field districts that inefficiently replicates the activities being done in each field district office. Enron-style off balance sheet liability is one thing; excessive operational budget is another.

Icarus July 27, 2009 at 7:26 pm

Everyone at DOT needs to pair up quickly and “fall in love”.

This should make them immune to responsibility and criticism, based on precedent.

Goldwater Conservative July 27, 2009 at 7:28 pm

“These numbers are relied upon by legislative appropriators and the executive branch to make accurate predictions and decisions regarding future fiscal policy.”

Really? I think Perdue and the GOP should take a look at their budget and revenue projections before throwing all of the stones at the DOT.

What the DOT did is highly unethical, but they are not the only ones to blame for the fiscal problems our state is facing. Perhaps a Pay-as-you-go plan should be spelled out for the state legislature.

Harry July 27, 2009 at 7:41 pm

Pay-go is required by the Georgia constitution. Maybe instead of trying to raise taxes in a bad economy, we should focus on learn-to-spend-less-or-don’t go. Maybe if the economy ever starts to pick up we can actually eliminate the state income tax, a reform which would really juice up a recovery. Maybe we’d start to recover some of the wealth that has been lost to Florida, Tennessee, Texas, etc.

Progressive Dem July 27, 2009 at 8:55 pm

Sonny is leaving quite a legacy.

IndyInjun July 27, 2009 at 10:18 pm

Billions? WHERE in the linked article did it say anything more than $321 million?

IF the DOT treasurer ordered them to stop recording contracts as commitments, that certainly would have crossed the line into fraud.

However, later it says The unexpected deficit first turned up during an audit released last September. According to that report, the shortfall resulted from a DOT budgeting process that committed funds to projects before the money actually was in hand.

What? Generally, commitments are recorded when the contract is issued for the contract price. The total committed amount increases with additive change orders and decreases with deductive change orders. Change orders may arise from the state’s original contract obligations, the scope of work, price adjustments (asphalt exploded in price and there is an adjustment factor for that) and for a lot of legitimate reasons. Commitments are used versus projected costs at completion and those versus appropriations to flag the need for appropriation increases, if the costs are legitimate and cannot be contractually avoided OR for the appropriation scope of work to be reduced to meet the funding realities.

No contract can be legally entered into without appropriated funds, but as we found with Mayor Campbell’s alleged fraud in the 90′s, you can have $40 million change orders to a $10 million original contract.

What generally produces unrecorded commitments is when the owner/DOT doesn’t want appropriators to know about change orders that might suggest that the agency made mistakes. The usual pattern is that the management of the agency declines to record change order costs as committed claiming legitimacy for failure to do so on the grounds that the costs are “disputed” between agency and contractors. Sound project controls would have himn record those costs as new projected costs, so that upper management gets disclosure. Sound internal auditing would test for undisclosed commitments.

Once the original contract is signed there can come into existence even more costs than the original under the relative liabilities of the owner.

These change order costs are every bit as legit as the original and there doesn’t have to be an appropriation or cash deposit to make it that way. Anybody reporting otherwise doesn’t know what the HELL they are writing or reporting.

There was a project manager for San Diego water department who hid $250 million in commitments like this about 12 years ago. The failure is also one of not auditing large contracts for ‘contingent’ or ‘disputed’ costs.

The DOT internal audit department needs to go first, it would seem.

The reporting on this sucks, though.

ByteMe July 28, 2009 at 5:10 am

The reporting on this sucks, though.

You mean Erick’s reporting sucks? Erick the “advocate” for Mark Sanford’s little “Argentinian Trail” hike has a problem with reporting?

Go figure :roll:

My question is: what suddenly changed that last year Purdue and Richardson decided that they needed to personally take it over and turn the agency into a “crisis”? What’s the end game that they’re looking for?

Chris July 28, 2009 at 5:34 am

I think that would mean Mike Evans is perfectly suited for the US Congress – they have been lying about deficits and engaging in shady accounting practices for decades. He’ll fit right in in Washington as another part-of-the-problem Republican.

Joshua Morris July 28, 2009 at 9:14 am

Just don’t shut them down before they clean up that awful mess in Oakwood.

Chris July 28, 2009 at 9:19 am

s/shut down/shot in the street/g

ByteMe July 28, 2009 at 9:26 am

No match.

Comments on this entry are closed.