State Transportation officials disagree strongly with a state auditor's report that the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) may have violated the state Constitution in some of its spending.
Missouri's Constitution clearly "limits the use of State Road Fund monies to activities related to construction and maintenance of the highway system," the auditors wrote in a report released Thursday, finding that MoDOT disbursed over $7 million from the fund for other uses.
The auditor's findings of unauthorized spending from the State Road Fund included:
• $1,899,000 for 10 legal settlements during the two business years that ended June 30, 2014. At least nine settlements related to employee discrimination lawsuits - with the majority of those tied to the Bolder Five-Year Direction Plan for downsizing MoDOT operations.
• $1,461,585 during that same period for 122 employees placed on administrative leave for 60 days prior to their termination.
The report said: "Paying employees not to work (leave with pay) is neither related to the construction of highways or highway related activities."
But, the department countered the Highway and Transportation Commission's "express authority to hire personnel carries with it the reasonably implied authority to pay salary and benefits to such personnel from the State Road Fund and to resolve employment disputes and litigation with current or former employees."
Deputy Auditor Harry Otto said the issue is having the employees take paid leave, rather than keeping them on the job until their terminations.
"If you have to report for duty on June 30, and your termination is at midnight June 30, you were there, ready to do your duty, all day on June 30," he said - complying with the constitutional requirements for doing work related to the roads.
"But, if you were told two months prior to that, "Don't show up. We'll just keep sending you another four paychecks,'" Otto added, "you could go somewhere else and work for two months while you're still on our payroll."
Auditors also said MoDOT's policy for relocating employees is more generous than the Office of Administration's policy for most other state agencies - and then MoDOT didn't even follow its own policies, in covering $30,000 of one employee's loss when he sold property at Lake St. Louis after being transferred from Macon to Kansas City.
Otto said the reimbursement issue would have been different if it had involved the employee's home in Macon - and MoDOT should have policies in line with those affecting all other state employees.
The auditors also said MoDOT spent $3,757,610 related to safety grant programs, "on behalf of local coalitions for public information and outreach, training, child safety seats, bicycle helmets and emergency response initiatives related to highway safety. In addition, MoDOT pays local municipalities directly for some law enforcement costs, such as officer overtime and equipment, associated with highway safety."
But, the audit emphasized, those aren't related to construction and maintenance as required.
The department said: "The Commission has the authority to "otherwise improve' the state highway system under (the) Missouri Constitution, which can include making state highway travel safer such as through promotion of safety belt laws, motorcycle safety, etc."
Again, the auditors said the Constitution's provision for the maintenance and construction of the highway system "does not include safety programs."
The audit report also found MoDOT violated the Sunshine Law when it settled with a former employee in closed session, but didn't disclose that settlement as the law requires. "An employee discrimination settlement totaling $625,000 was approved by the Commission in May 2013. The final resolution of the lawsuit was not publicly disclosed as required by law," the report stated.
The department replied it treats settlement agreements as open records and provides such information upon request and said that complies with the Sunshine Law.
The report called that position "illogical," noting: "The phrase "shall be made public upon final disposition' is in active voice requiring a more affirmative action rather than just a passive response of making settlement agreements available only upon a request."