State of New York
Office of the Inspector General

Investigation of the Use of Assigned Vehicles
by the New York State Department of Corrections
and Community Supervision

November 2013

Catherine Leahy Scott
Inspector General

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Inspector General commenced a broad review of the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s (DOCCS) vehicle use after
evidence from two ongoing but separate investigations raised questions about the
agency’s apparent practice of assigning state vehicles to facility superintendents mainly
for commuting purposes. 1 The Inspector General found the longstanding practice of
assigning vehicles to some 80 correctional facility superintendents and central office
executives mainly for commuting use to be unjustified and contrary to a 2009 revision to
state policy, which included a direction from the Governor’s Office for a “dramatic shift”
in vehicle usage by state agencies.
Specifically, the Inspector General determined that Brian Fischer, during his
tenure as DOCCS Commissioner, continued to approve these vehicle assignments in
disregard of a September 2009 Governor’s Office initiative and revised Division of the
Budget policy mandating restrictions on the assignment of vehicles to individual
employees. In addition, despite the new policy’s requirement that an agency conduct an
analysis as the basis for future vehicle use, DOCCS engaged in no such analysis. Fischer
also conceded that in response to the 2009 budget policy, his agency did not implement
any change in vehicle assignment and did not remove a single vehicle from the fleet.
Fischer’s only action was to seek approval for the status quo by sending an inaccurate
memorandum to then-Deputy Secretary for Public Safety Denise O’Donnell claiming
questionable “previous” approval for the assignment of vehicles to superintendents and
omitting any reference to the assignment of vehicles to certain executive level staff.
A basis for the vehicle assignments was the purported need for superintendents to
respond to off-hour emergencies and to be on call at all times. While the Inspector
General acknowledges that the security of the state’s correctional system is of critical
importance, the investigation revealed that emergencies requiring the immediate response

1

DOCCS was established effective April 1, 2011, by the merger of the New York State Department of
Correctional Services and the New York State Division of Parole.

of superintendents are rare events. Furthermore, the Inspector General found scant
evidence that the assignment of vehicles to DOCCS superintendents and agency
executives assists such responses. In fact, as Fischer stated, superintendents are not
designated as “first responders” to emergencies; that responsibility is assigned to “watch
commanders, on-line supervisors, sergeants,” and others at the facility. Indeed, the
vehicles assigned to most superintendents are not equipped with police-style lights or
sirens that would facilitate a rapid response to an emergency. The Inspector General
determined that DOCCS superintendents and agency executives mainly use assigned
vehicles not for emergencies or other necessary business purposes, but rather for
commuting between their homes and workstations, thus receiving an additional, albeit
unofficial, benefit.
The Inspector General also found that DOCCS has not issued clear policy with
respect to the use of state resources, including vehicles and state-issued credit cards, for
attendance at work-related social functions, such as retirement parties for
superintendents. While attendance at such events by the commissioner and a top deputy
at DOCCS’s expense arguably serves an agency purpose, attendance by dozens of other
staff members does not, and should not be supported by the expenditure of state
resources.
Further, Fischer and another DOCCS senior executive failed to report the taxable
value associated with the non-business use of their assigned vehicles, as required.
The Inspector General recommends that DOCCS review and revise its policy and
practice of assigning vehicles to superintendents and other individual executive level
staff. Any new policy and practice should conform to current state vehicle use policy and
ensure that vehicles are assigned only to individuals who have a specific demonstrated
state business purpose for the vehicles.
The Inspector General shared the findings and recommendations of this
investigation with DOCCS and assisted DOCCS in formulating corrective action.

2

DOCCS has taken a number of significant steps to address these issues, including several
changes to policies regarding the assignment and use of agency vehicles. Specifically,
DOCCS issued new policies and directives advising executive staff, regional directors,
and superintendents that they would no longer be assigned vehicles, and that all vehicles
must be returned to the agency vehicle pool. DOCCS further advised that agency
vehicles may not be used to attend social events such as retirement parties, and that all
non-business related travel in an agency vehicle must be logged and reported for tax
purposes. DOCCS has also updated its vehicle log and reporting procedures to record
commuter usage and expanded its internal compliance unit to review and audit vehicle
usage and gas credit card charges to ensure compliance with agency and State policy.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Allegations
In September 2009, the Office of the State Inspector General received a complaint
that the then-superintendent of Gouverneur Correctional Facility, a medium-security
prison operated by DOCCS in northern New York, was using his state-assigned vehicle
for purposes unrelated to his official duties. In May 2010, the Inspector General received
a separate but similar allegation regarding the then-superintendent of Lakeview Shock
Incarceration Correctional Facility southwest of Buffalo.
While investigating the first complaint, the Inspector General ascertained that the
Gouverneur Correctional Facility superintendent had a state vehicle specifically assigned
to him, which he primarily used to commute daily between his home and the facility, a
round trip of approximately 83 miles. Likewise, the Inspector General found that the
Lakeview Correctional Facility superintendent used his state-assigned vehicle largely for
commuting several times a week between his residence and the facility, a nearly 183-mile
round trip.

3

The Inspector General also determined that both officials failed to complete
vehicle use records required by DOCCS regulations, and one incorrectly reported his
taxable fringe benefit of an employer-provided vehicle as required by federal tax law and
state policy.
These initial findings raised questions about DOCCS’s assignment of state
vehicles to facility superintendents mainly for commuting use. When the Inspector
General probed further, it uncovered that this practice was system-wide and longstanding.
On June 3, 2011, after Fischer and many other DOCCS officials had been interviewed as
part of this investigation, the Inspector General received information that Fischer and
other staff had used state vehicles to travel to attend a retirement party for a DOCCS
superintendent in western New York. In accordance with authority under New York
State Executive Law Section 53 and in furtherance of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo’s
mandate to reduce state agency spending and fundamentally reassess the manner in which
state government operates, the Inspector General commenced a broader examination with
the goal of effecting reforms and savings in vehicle management at DOCCS and, by
example, other agencies.

The New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
The New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
currently operates 58 correctional facilities across the state housing approximately 54,700
inmates. DOCCS employs a workforce of 29,536, including executive and administrative
staff located at its central office at the Harriman State Office Campus in Albany. Fiftyseven superintendents are responsible for facility day-to-day operations and report to a
Deputy Commissioner in the DOCCS central office. 2 Brian Fischer served as DOCCS
Commissioner from March 2007 to May 2013.
During the period reviewed, DOCCS maintained a fleet of approximately 1,440
passenger-type vehicles, 124 of which were assigned to specific individuals. Among the
2

Figures provided by DOCCS as of September 27, 2013.

4

unassigned vehicles were numerous pool vehicles available generally for use by DOCCS
employees for state business purposes.

Scope and Methodology
The Inspector General’s investigation examined the use of the state vehicles
assigned to 124 DOCCS employees, including 64 superintendents in 68 facilities and 60
central office staff, during the period 2008-2010. The investigation also included an
analysis of DOCCS’s vehicle usage practices and policies, and the propriety of DOCCS’s
assignment of specific vehicles to individual employees in light of 2009 cost-reduction
initiatives.
The Inspector General obtained and reviewed relevant records from DOCCS
including all tax reporting forms filed by superintendents and central office executives
during 2008-2010, and DOCCS vehicle directives and policies, among other records.
The Inspector General also interviewed 97 individuals, including all
superintendents, Fischer, and other central office staff with assigned vehicles. 3 Several
members of the prior administration, including former New York State Deputy Secretary
to the Governor and Commissioner of Criminal Justice Services Denise O’Donnell, were
also interviewed. In addition, the Inspector General conducted interviews and secured
and reviewed records from the Office of Taxpayer Accountability and the Division of the
Budget.
With regard to the attendance by Fischer and other DOCCS officials at a June 2,
2011, retirement party, the Inspector General conducted interviews and examined
numerous documents.

3

Two superintendents were unavailable to be interviewed.

5

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FINDS MANY DOCCS VEHICLE ASSIGMENTS
WERE UNJUSTIFIED
Director of State Operations Implements New Policy on Agencies’ Vehicle Use
In 2009, the administration of then-Governor David A. Paterson initiated a series
of actions to reduce agency spending. Valerie Grey, then-Director of State Operations
and head of the Office of Taxpayer Accountability, related to the Inspector General that
she and other members of the Paterson administration focused on state vehicle use
because it was viewed as an area of state spending where waste and inefficiency existed.
As Grey testified, “We were looking at reducing the size of the fleet, reducing the cost of
travel . . . We were basically trying to identify all the different ways we could try to save
money in state operations, and [vehicle use] was one we thought was ripe for taking a
look.”
As part of these efforts, on August 10, 2009, Grey issued a directive to heads of
state agencies and public authorities that focused on employee travel costs and required
each agency and authority to “reduce its travel costs this fiscal year by a minimum of
25% from the total spent in FY 2008/2009.” One of the mandates in Grey’s
memorandum was that agencies “expand the number of pool cars available by
eliminating the practice of dedicating cars to specific individuals, except in extraordinary
circumstances approved by the agency head.”
Further emphasizing the determination to reduce vehicle expenses, on September
18, 2009, the Division of the Budget (DOB) disseminated an updated policy on state
vehicle acquisition, usage, and assignment which superseded an earlier September 2003
version. The revised DOB policy (Budget Policy and Reporting Manual, D-750) took
effect immediately and included significant new provisions addressing in particular the
assignment of agency vehicles to specific employees and the personal use of vehicles.
While DOB often promulgates and updates policies and distributes them to the
appropriate mid-level officials within agencies and authorities for their review and

6

implementation, this particular revision was accompanied by a memorandum from Grey
to the heads of all state agencies and public authorities specifically highlighting its
importance. The communication from Grey began:
This memorandum is to bring your attention to the recently revised
Division of the Budget BPRM Item No. D-750 with respect to the
acquiring, use and management, reporting, and disposal of state vehicles.
In continuing with the series of directives to agencies, aimed at reducing
wasteful spending, and eliminating fraud and abuse in state government,
the Office of Taxpayer Accountability and the Division of the Budget
have instituted necessary revisions to the policies and procedures required
by Division of the Budget for managing state vehicles.
Grey then specifically emphasized the significant change to statewide vehicle
policy, calling it a “dramatic shift” from earlier practice, with the expectation that “strict
application” of the new policy would result in significant savings for the state:
It is clear that some of these policies are a dramatic shift from previously
allowed practices, but it is expected that agencies will not only achieve
savings through the strict application of the policies and guidelines set
forth in this bulletin, but will also generate transparent measures of
increased accountability in the use of state vehicles. I ask that you to pay
close attention to the contained policies and use them as the minimum
standards as you develop your individual agency fleet policies. 4
[Emphasis supplied]
In her testimony to the Inspector General as part of this investigation, Grey
described the sense of urgency that drove the initiative and the necessity that major
reforms be enacted. Grey stated, “By highlighting a revised budget bulletin, the
Governor’s Office was trying to send a signal to the agencies that this was indeed
important; pay attention.” She added, “These things were designed to make everybody
look, to make everybody think, to make people question.”

4

The full memorandum is included in the appendix to this report.

7

In conspicuous contrast to previous policy that allowed agencies latitude in
vehicle assignment and usage, the new D-750 requirements established statewide
limitations on how state vehicles are to be used, including the following:
State agency vehicles must be used only for official business, and their use
for any personal business is strictly forbidden, except (i) [by state officials
of cabinet rank and heads of agencies], and (ii) under very limited
circumstances, expressly authorized by agency policy, where the personal
use is ancillary to official business (such as for occasional commuting
purposes within a reasonable distance, where the vehicle is mainly used
for agency business).
Particularly pertinent to the Inspector General’s examination of DOCCS’s vehicle usage,
the new policy also directed:
Agencies may not dedicate cars to specific individuals except in
extraordinary circumstances approved by the head of the agency and the
appropriate Deputy Secretary, and the use of such car shall strictly be for
carrying out agency duties. [Emphasis supplied]
Of note, the new DOB policy also required agencies to conduct an “analysis of all
available options” to serve as the basis for the “acquisition, assignment and use” of
vehicles, and that agencies revise their policies as necessary so as to “incorporate” the
new rules on vehicle use. As will be detailed later in this report, notwithstanding this
directive, DOCCS did not engage in any such analysis and did not modify its state
vehicle assignments.

DOCCS Commissioner Requests Exemptions from New Vehicle Rules
As an agency employing a large workforce and operating an extensive and varied
fleet of vehicles, DOCCS clearly was, to use Grey’s term, “ripe” for potential reductions,
especially with respect to vehicles assigned to specific individuals for commuting, a
particular target of the new policy. At the time the new policy was promulgated, at least
124 DOCCS staff had vehicles assigned to them. In addition to 64 correctional facility

8

superintendents, dedicated vehicles were provided to 60 executive and other staff in the
DOCCS central office in Albany.
Brian Fischer, the then-DOCCS Commissioner and a recipient of Grey’s
memorandum and the new DOB policy, acknowledged during his testimony to the
Inspector General that he understood at the time the importance of the changes
anticipated as a result of the initiative. As Fischer testified, the goals of these efforts
were “to reduce the number of people who had vehicles and then put some restrictions on
vehicles that didn’t exist before.” The Inspector General determined, however, that the
new vehicle policy was met with inaction by DOCCS. Despite the new policy’s
requirement that an agency conduct an analysis as the basis for future vehicle use, Fischer
testified that he neither engaged in such analysis nor directed that it be performed.
Indeed, Fischer conceded that notwithstanding the 2009 DOB policy, his agency did not
implement any changes in vehicle assignment and did not remove a single vehicle from
the fleet.
Rather, Fischer related that, pursuant to a provision of the new policy requiring
the approval of a deputy secretary for any valid and necessary exceptions, he spoke with
Denise O’Donnell, then-Commissioner of the New York State Division of Criminal
Justice and Deputy Secretary to the Governor for Criminal Justice, and described
DOCCS’s practice of assignment of vehicles. Thereafter, Fischer forwarded a written
request to O’Donnell seeking significant exemptions from the implementation of the new
rules. In his September 25, 2009, memorandum to O’Donnell, Fischer requested certain
modifications: “After careful review of the revised Division of the Budget BPRM Item
#D-750, it is respectfully requested that DOCS be given approval to assign specific
vehicles to specific individuals, and to seek approval for a generalized modification of
DOB’s policy for specialized units.” 5
Fischer sought approval for four “titled persons” at DOCCS to continue their use
of an assigned vehicle: Fischer himself; the Deputy Commissioner for Facility
5

Fischer’s memorandum in its entirety is appended to this report.

9

Operations; the Deputy Commissioner/Inspector General; 6 and the colonel who heads the
DOCCS Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT). In support of maintaining
assigned vehicles for these four titles, Fischer explained that the “positions the
individuals hold require their ability to respond to any emergency situation and to remain
in communication at all times,” noting too that each individual’s vehicle is equipped with
a State Police and DOCCS radio. The Inspector General determined these specific
requests to be valid and within the parameters of the DOB policy permitting heads of
agencies unrestricted use of their agency fleet vehicle and the dedication of vehicles to
specific individuals in “extraordinary circumstances.”
Fischer also requested, as a “generalized modification of the policy,” that
“specific titles and units” have access to vehicles “at a moment’s notice.” They included
the DOCCS Inspector General’s field investigators; the DOCCS Deputy Inspector
General; Albany CERT members; and the Director and Assistant Director of the DOCCS
Crisis Intervention Unit. Fischer indicated that these individuals are peace officers and
“usually armed when on official business.” The Inspector General similarly determined
that this request conformed to the “extraordinary circumstances” provision of the new
policy.
Further, and most directly relevant to the issues examined in this investigation,
Fischer requested an exemption from the policy to allow assignment of vehicles to all
DOCCS facility superintendents. While offering no justification for the superintendents’
need for assigned vehicles, Fischer merely declared, “It should be pointed out that facility
superintendents have access to specific vehicles as previously approved.” However,
DOCCS was unable to provide evidence of such previous approval; rather, Fischer
indicated that the “approval” to which he referred was DOCCS’s longstanding practice of
providing assigned vehicles to its superintendents.

6

The DOCCS Inspector General is not employed by, or a part of, the Office of the New York State
Inspector General.

10

O’Donnell approved Fischer’s request on September 29, 2009. However, as
discussed below, Fischer’s memorandum was inaccurate and omitted key information
concerning the extent of DOCCS’s assignment of vehicles to individual staff.

Fischer’s Request for Exemptions from New Policy Inaccurately Asserts
“Previous Approval” of Assigned Vehicles for Superintendents
As noted, DOCCS has had a longstanding practice of assigning vehicles to all
facility superintendents as well as a significant number of executive and administrative
staff in its central office in Albany. Indeed, the practice existed well before Fischer’s
memorandum to O’Donnell. Fischer, a DOCCS employee since 1975, related that the
practice of assigning vehicles to superintendents began decades earlier, although he did
not know the exact date, and that the practice became entrenched. “I can’t remember
them not having them,” Fischer stated. “When you became a superintendent, you got a
vehicle.” In fact, Fischer himself first was issued a vehicle, which he used for
commuting, when he was appointed a correctional facility superintendent in 1991.
To continue the practice of providing superintendents with vehicles for
commuting, Fischer claimed in his memorandum to O’Donnell that the assignment of
vehicles to superintendents had been “previously approved,” an assertion that is
inaccurate. In his testimony to the Inspector General, Fischer explained that in his
memorandum and earlier conversation with O’Donnell, he was referring to DOCCS’s
longstanding practice, rather than a formal approval or agreement, of granting vehicles to
superintendents. “I was thinking generic,” Fischer testified, adding:
This was an ongoing, long-term acquiescence, shall we say. Are you
asking, “Did somebody write down approval?” Probably not. But what I
was trying to get to her was facility superintendents have had vehicles for
over 20 years. And that was assumed that was acceptable on the grounds
of they’re 24/7, and they’re always called back when necessary . . . I
believed, and I still do, that it’s a necessary part of their job. 7
7

While DOCCS Directive 2932 (Use of State Owned Vehicles) states that agency vehicles “are not to be
used for transportation to and from an employee’s home unless it is incidental to a field trip or other official
business,” DOCCS has also promulgated “Fleet Management Policies” which provide: “Other vehicles

11

Notwithstanding, Fischer’s explanation that superintendents “have had vehicles for over
20 years” and his justification that superintendents are considered on duty “24/7” were
irrelevant as Grey’s memorandum clearly called for a “dramatic shift from previously
allowed practices,” and mandated “strict application” of the policy.
When questioned by the Inspector General, O’Donnell stated that she did not
recall having a specific conversation with Fischer about the assignment of vehicles to
superintendents nor the basis for such. With respect to Fischer’s claim in his
memorandum that the practice had been “previously approved,” O’Donnell said she
assumed then and while reviewing the memorandum during her interview that approval
had been granted pursuant to prior policy. O’Donnell proclaimed that it was her view
that the assignment of vehicles to facility superintendents was justifiable. According to
O’Donnell, during her review of drafts of the September 2009 DOB policy prior to its
finalization, she had urged the Office of Taxpayer Accountability to include an exception
for public safety agencies such as DOCCS. However, despite O’Donnell’s urgings, the
DOB policy that was finalized and disseminated contained no such exception, an
indication that DOB had considered her suggestion to exclude public safety agencies and
discounted it.
O’Donnell explained that she approved the request because she concurred that it
was appropriate to assign vehicles to superintendents “based on [her] experience,” and
specifically her belief that the need for a superintendent to respond to an emergency “is a
very realistic one.” Contrary to O’Donnell’s assumption and as explored later in this
report, the Inspector General determined that superintendents rarely respond to
emergencies after-hours, and that there was nothing precluding superintendents from
responding to those infrequent emergencies in their personal vehicles. Notably,
O’Donnell, when apprised of the Inspector General’s findings that facility
superintendents rarely respond to emergencies, replied, “That would surprise me,”
adding, “If I thought that it was a perk, I would never have authorized it.”

may be assigned as designated by the Commissioner where it is critical to the agency’s business of
maintaining the safety and security” of correctional facilities.

12

Fischer’s Request for Exemptions Omits Executive and Administrative Staff
A more glaring omission in Fischer’s memorandum to O’Donnell was his failure
to even mention the 16 executive and administrative staff who were provided assigned
vehicles at the time. These officials included the Executive Deputy Commissioner,
Deputy Commissioner/Counsel, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners, and
an Associate Commissioner, among others. The Inspector General determined that none
of these officials’ use of their vehicles falls within the new policy’s “extraordinary
circumstances” exception for use of dedicated vehicles. 8
Asked by the Inspector General to explain his omission, Fischer replied, “Honest,
I don’t think I thought it through, and then I knew I’d probably have some trouble. So I
made a decision. I know I extended my authority, I know that.” Notably, Fischer, in
drafting this memorandum to O’Donnell, did not consult the DOCCS First Deputy
Commissioner, Counsel, or Director of Administration, whose responsibilities include
monitoring DOCCS vehicles use and policy.

Use of Assigned Vehicles by Superintendents and Executive Staff Was Not Justified
In his testimony, Fischer asserted that the assignment of vehicles to facility
superintendents and executive staff, although admittedly inconsistent with the new
policy, was justified by what he termed the unique demands of operating a correctional
system. As Fischer described it:
Corrections is a little different. State Police is a little bit different. That’s
my position. There are expectations on us that are not placed on other
people. I think it’s those expectations and, in a sense, liabilities for them,
that I think they deserve a little extra concern or acceptance of certain
rules changes.

8

As an agency head, Fischer was permitted unrestricted use of an agency vehicle.

13

Regarding assignment of vehicles to superintendents, Fischer indicated that the
need to respond to facility emergencies was his major consideration. Having a dedicated
vehicle, he testified, assures that if called to respond, they have the means to do so:
I want them to be available to the facility when I call them, and I’ve done
that. If there’s an issue at a facility, and the superintendent is at home, I
expect him and her to get in the car, and we said it, get there and go take
care of the business. That’s all there is to it. Nothing special. You’re on
24/7, you carry a beeper, you carry a cell phone, you’re available.
Availability, I guess, is the issue.
That assertion notwithstanding, when queried how frequently an emergency
occurs in the correctional system that necessitates that a superintendent return to a facility
after hours, Fischer testified, “I would say once a month.” Fischer acknowledged,
however, that superintendents are not designated as “first responders” to emergencies, a
responsibility that is assigned to “watch commanders, on-line supervisors, sergeants,”
and others at the facility. Indeed, the vehicles assigned to most superintendents are not
equipped with police-style lights or sirens, which are typically connected with vehicles
utilized for rapid response to an emergency.
The Inspector General’s investigation found scant evidence supporting Fischer’s
claim that assigned vehicles are needed for emergency responses. Not only are
emergency responses rare, but also some claimed instances of emergency response have
been mischaracterized as such. As illustrated below, 41 percent of staff interviewed
never were requested to respond to an emergency, and an additional 7 percent of staff did
not respond to an emergency in the previous three to eight years.

14

Frequency of Emergency Response

2 to 5 times per
year
23%
Less than
1 time
per year
48%

Never
41%

None in past 3
to 8 years
7%

1 time per year
27%
1 time per
month
2%

None of the superintendents interviewed could point to an instance when they
were required to respond to an emergency situation. The testimony of the then-Altona
Correctional Facility superintendent was typical: “No, I haven’t been in here as a
response . . . because of an emergency. I get called and most of the things that happened,
if you can take care of it on the phone, there’s no use to come in.” Similarly, the thensuperintendent of Gouverneur Correctional Facility testified, “I have come over here on
weekends and off-time and off-hours for off-shifts. Emergencies, haven’t had to, no
blazing trips from someplace to here.”
A number of superintendents initially indicated that they had responded to
emergencies, but, when asked to elaborate, described the instances in question as less
than urgent. For example, the then-Greene Correctional Facility superintendent recalled
returning to the facility when a correction officer under his command was involved in an
incident with local police, but conceded, “ [I] don’t know if I’d call that an emergency.”

15

The Riverview Correctional Facility superintendent reported that the only time he was
called back to the facility during the past year was for a meeting on budget issues.

Further undermining the claim that the assignment of dedicated vehicles to
superintendents is necessary, the Inspector General found that a number of
superintendents readily have made use of facility pool vehicles when their assigned
vehicles were unavailable. The then-superintendents of Mid-Orange Correctional
Facility and Chateaugay Correctional Facility both related that they used other facility
fleet vehicles when their assigned vehicles were being repaired. One particularly
illustrative example undermining Fisher’s justification is the then-Lincoln Correctional
Facility superintendent, who testified that he used his assigned vehicle to drive between
his home and a commuter train station, where the vehicle remained parked all day. He
then traveled by train to New York City and used other pool vehicles kept at the facility
for local travel as needed.

Given the lack of evidence that superintendents respond to emergencies, the
Inspector General asked Fischer why they were not expected to use their personal
vehicles for travel to and from their workplaces. Fischer again cited the need for them to
be available to respond during off hours, asserting, “Suppose they only have one car and
the wife’s got that car?” Fischer then answered his own question: “We’re stretching it, I
agree. Could it be done? Of course.” Fischer also expressed the opinion that DOCCS
might be responsible for reimbursing superintendents for travel costs when they respond
to facility emergencies using their personal vehicles. However, State Comptroller
guidelines on reimbursement for travel to an employee’s workstation are inconsistent
with Fischer’s position. 9

9

Even if, for the sake of argument, reimbursement for travel to an employee’s workstation were permitted,
such reimbursement would cost the state a mere fraction of the cost of maintaining assigned vehicles.

16

Fischer sought to justify vehicle assignments to central office staff by asserting
that executive and administrative staff assigned to central office “do a lot of travel,” in
which Fischer included “site visits” to facilities and driving “all over the town,” referring
to staff’s attendance at meetings in Albany. Fischer further claimed that the use of pool,
rental, or personal vehicles for these types of travel was not practical, although he
conceded that no analysis of vehicle use and availability had led to that conclusion: “I
took it upon myself to make the decision to give them the vehicles.” 10 Fischer elaborated
that the assignment of vehicles to executive staff, as well as to superintendents, is “for the
good of the state and particularly the good of the agency,” adding:

I know what the agency looked like years ago when we didn’t have a lot
of people traveling and doing the job that needs to be done, being
available. We’ve come a long way in the 35 years I’ve been here. I think
we’re as good as we are because I’m as good to them as they are to the
state.
To the extent Fisher viewed vehicle assignments as workplace perks to improve
morale and loyalty, this is a wholly inadequate rationale for defying state policy and the
unauthorized expenditure of state resources.

Unjustifiable Vehicle Assignment to Central Office Staff

The Inspector General found even less justification for the assignment of
dedicated vehicles to executive and administrative staff in DOCCS’s central office.
Sixteen central office officials with assigned vehicles were interviewed by the Inspector
General, and only two said they had ever responded to an off-hour “emergency.”
Similar to superintendents, central office staff are not first responders to facility
emergencies, further undermining the argument for assigning them vehicles. One central

10

An analysis of vehicle availability, if conducted, would have taken account of the fact that two new
vehicles purchased in April 2009 had not been assigned nearly two years later. The vehicles each cost
$20,967.

17

office official, Assistant Commissioner Diane Van Buren, cited this fact when asked by
the Inspector General if she were allowed to use her assigned state vehicle for
commuting. Van Buren replied, “I just don’t feel I’m entitled to [a vehicle for
commuting], I don’t feel I’m an emergency responder.”

Absent a documented need to respond to emergencies and lack of justification for
assigned vehicles, DOCCS’s practice of dedicating specific vehicles to individual staff
members can only fairly be described as intended to provide a convenience, even an
additional benefit or perk, to certain employees. Fischer acknowledged as much, calling
the practice a way of meeting what he believed to be his “obligation” to senior staff. As
Fischer testified:
This is where it gets philosophical, but my position is if I ask you to
relocate, say, 100 miles away, to run a facility, and you don’t want to
move your family, you’re going to commute back and forth. You may
stay at the facility a couple nights and go home a couple nights, so the
vehicle becomes a necessity. I’m asking you to relocate . . . it’s part of
the, I feel, it’s part of the job.
In support of his position, Fischer referred to the situations of two former superintendents
he promoted to executive positions in central office. He related:
[I] yanked [them] out of being superintendents and brought them to
Albany . . . I felt obligated to give them the same, they had their cars, and I
needed them to come to central office . . . It was only fair to continue their
use of the car.
Further, Fischer opined that the assignment of vehicles was appropriate given the special
demands that DOCCS managers face:
We ask people to do things that the average person doesn’t understand,
doesn’t want to understand, and probably couldn’t do it. So, if I’ve leaned
in the direction of being better to them because of what they do, so be it.
It should be noted that during the period reviewed superintendents were paid an annual
salary that ranged from $78,344 to $144,535 and averaged approximately $122,620.
18

Salaries of the executive and administrative staff assigned vehicles ranged from $65,808
to $164,553 and averaged $125,883.
Clearly, in view of these findings, the assignment of vehicles by DOCCS to
superintendents and executive staff falls well short of the DOB policy standard that
restricts such practice to “extraordinary circumstances.” Asked if such vehicle
assignments were in accord with that policy requirement, Fischer readily conceded, “No,
they’re not. I made the call that they should have them. It’s a policy call on my part.”

Assigned Vehicles Confer an Additional Unauthorized Benefit with Free Gasoline
and E-Z Pass Use at Taxpayer Expense
The Inspector General determined that during the 2009-2010 reporting period, the
superintendents and central office staff with assigned vehicles drove their vehicles a total
of approximately 965,000 miles, using the vehicles mainly for commuting to and from
work. In fact, some of the officials used their vehicles almost exclusively for this
purpose. Notably, all superintendents interviewed reported obtaining gasoline at
DOCCS expense by fueling their vehicles at DOCCS pumps or by using a DOCCSissued gasoline credit card.
The investigation also revealed that four central office executives commuted in
excess of 150 miles round-trip per day, and nine superintendents logged more than 100
round-trip commuting miles a day. For example, Assistant Commissioner Catherine
Jacobsen reported she travels 208 miles each work day (round trip) between her residence
and DOCCS’s central office. As her commuting route includes the Thruway, she utilizes
an E-ZPass provided by DOCCS. 11 Of note, Jacobsen testified that she never has
responded to an emergency in her current position.

11

The E-ZPass usage for each vehicle was reported in a lump sum for the year, thereby rendering an
analysis of personal versus business use impossible. Regardless, the Inspector General notes that the use of
a DOCCS-issued E-ZPass for commuting purposes is also an inappropriate utilization of state resources.

19

The then-Mid-Orange Correctional Facility superintendent used his assigned
vehicle for a 140-mile round-trip commute. Nearly all of the 27,426 miles he logged on
his vehicle during 2009-2010 was for commuting. The superintendent also used a
DOCCS-issued E-ZPass.
In addition, the then-Moriah Shock Correctional Facility superintendent
commuted 144 miles round-trip; the then-Chateaugay Correctional Facility
superintendent made a daily round-trip commute of approximately 115 miles; and the
then-Altona Correctional Facility superintendent commuted a round-trip distance of
approximately 101 miles.

Improper Personal Use of State Vehicles by DOCCS Officials
DOCCS’s policy prohibits the use of state vehicles for personal purposes,
including the transporting of non-business passengers. 12 While arguing that use of stateassigned vehicles for commuting is permissible despite state policy, Fischer was adamant
that employees’ use of vehicles for personal, non-commuting purposes was improper and
not allowed. Fischer testified that all superintendents “from day one” were advised of
this prohibition, but he acknowledged that violations “probably” occur.
In fact, 23 percent of superintendents and central office officials who were
interviewed admitted to having transported non-business related passengers in their state
vehicles. For instance, the then-Greene Correctional Facility superintendent reported he
had utilized his state-assigned vehicle to pick up his children at school. Of this he said,
“If I stopped and picked up my kids on the way home, I would do that . . . my kids’
school is less than a minute off the main road [he used to commute between the facility
and home].” Asked by the Inspector General about the additional liability incurred by the
state when having his children in the state vehicle, the superintendent replied, “My child
would not be covered.” The then-Collins Correctional Facility superintendent also

12

DOCCS Directive 2932.

20

admitted he had utilized his state-assigned vehicle to transport his child to school on
occasion.
In addition, the then-superintendent of Lakeview Shock Incarceration
Correctional Facility testified to using his assigned vehicle to retrieve a friend’s 16-year
old child from school. When asked if he was aware of DOCCS policy barring such
conduct, he acknowledged, “The policy is non-state employees don’t belong in the
vehicle” and that he had violated that policy “occasionally.” The then-Oneida
Correctional Facility superintendent admitted transporting her partner’s child in her
assigned vehicle. The then-Queensboro Correctional Facility superintendent admitted
using the assigned vehicle to travel with his partner to their summer home on weekends, a
round trip of approximately 200 miles.
Officials interviewed also reported using their assigned vehicles for personal
purposes such as stopping for coffee or to purchase a few necessities along or near their
commuting route. Although limited incidental personal use is permitted when vehicles
are properly assigned, the Inspector General discovered instances of personal use that
push the limits of the reasonableness standard. For instance, the then-Gouverneur
Correctional Facility superintendent, who is also the Town of Clayton supervisor, utilized
his state vehicle during his daily morning and evening commute to stop at the Clayton
Town Offices to conduct town business. 13 A member of the Clayton Volunteer Fire
Department, the superintendent also drove his DOCCS vehicle to the fire station. In
addition, he used his state vehicle to attend meetings of the Clayton Antique Boat
Museum at the Clayton Museum and the Jefferson County Fire Advisory Board in
Watertown.

13

The Inspector General confirmed that the superintendent received required approval for this outside
employment from DOCCS and from the former New York State Commission on Public Integrity pursuant
to 19 NYCRR Part 932.

21

Fischer and Former Deputy Commissioner LeClaire Fail to Report Taxable Value
of Vehicle Use
The Inspector General found that Commissioner Fischer and former Deputy
Commissioner for Correctional Facilities Lucien LeClaire used state vehicles to commute
between their residences and workstations, but did not report and pay taxes associated
with this benefit, as required.
Federal and state tax law and New York State policy require employees to report
the taxable value of their personal use of state vehicles. 14 If an employer provides a
vehicle which is used exclusively for business purposes, there are no tax consequences.
Business use, however, does not include an employee’s commuting between residence
and workstation, or other personal use. Thus, employees must distinguish between
business and personal miles; otherwise, according to Internal Revenue Service guidelines,
all miles are considered personal for tax purposes. In complying with the tax filing
requirement, DOCCS’s Support Operations unit annually provides employees assigned a
vehicle a Taxable Value of Personal Use of Employer Provided Vehicle form which
includes the vehicle’s total mileage for the reporting period and instructs the employees
to calculate their taxable fringe benefit attributable to their commuting use of the vehicle.
This calculation is based on self-reported total commuting miles or the number of oneway commuting trips between home and work. The employees must return the
completed form to the central office, which adjusts their reportable wage accordingly.

The Inspector General found, however, that Fischer, while commissioner, and
LeClaire, while deputy commissioner, failed to report this taxable fringe benefit. When
questioned by the Inspector General about their delinquent filing, both Fischer and
LeClaire asserted that they are not required to file the taxable value form, citing the
approval granted by former Deputy Secretary to the Governor and Commissioner of
Criminal Justice Services Denise O’Donnell for them and other DOCCS employees to

14

IRS regulations, DOB Budget Policy & Reporting Manual, D-750, and State Comptroller Payroll
Bulletin.

22

have assigned vehicles. As noted above, in a September 25, 2009, memorandum to
O’Donnell, Fischer sought permission to assign vehicles to specific employees,
exempting them from the then-newly promulgated Budget Bulletin D-750. However,
Fischer and LeClaire seem to have conflated approval for an assigned vehicle with
exemption from tax reporting requirements -- such approval does not negate the reporting
requirement. In point of fact, it is the employee with an assigned vehicle who most likely
would be using a vehicle for commuting and other personal use, thereby triggering the
requirement to maintain a vehicle use log of business and non-business miles and to then
report the personal fringe benefit. Notably, Fischer told the Inspector General that he
neither sought nor received advice from DOCCS Counsel, the Governor’s Office, or any
other official regarding his position on his claimed tax exemption. 15
Inaccurate Tax Filings Records Regarding Vehicle Use By Superintendents
The Inspector General found that DOCCS superintendents by and large comply
with this requirement and annually file the Taxable Value form to report the taxable
fringe benefit related to their commuting in state-assigned vehicles. However, the
Inspector General also found that a number of DOCCS officials who have filed the
required taxable value forms associated with their vehicle use have not always done so
correctly.

Given that most employees work at least 225 days a year, employees with
assigned vehicles would therefore be expected to report at least 450 one-way
commutes. 16 However, data collected by the Inspector General reveal that almost 60
percent of those interviewed reported fewer than the expected number of one-way trips.
Surprisingly, several superintendents reported one-way trip totals that exceeded the
mileage logged by their vehicles. These findings raise questions about the accuracy of
15

Contrary to Fisher’s testimony, DOCCS produced a memorandum from Fisher addressed to the thenDeputy Secretary to the Governor for Criminal Justice seeking a tax exemption on behalf of himself,
LeClaire, the Department’s Inspector General, and the CERT Director for commuting to and from work in
an assigned agency vehicle. There is no evidence, however, that this request was acted on by the Deputy
Secretary. It should be noted that the Deputy Secretary lacks the authority to grant such an exemption.

23

the self-reported figures and further highlight the need for DOCCS to ensure that
employees who are appropriately assigned vehicles complete accurate daily logs.

Failure to Maintain a Daily Vehicle Log in Violation of DOCCS Policy
DOCCS Directive 2932 requires employees who use a state vehicle to keep a
record of their vehicle usage. The Daily Vehicle Log serves as an important means for
DOCCS to account for and monitor vehicle mileage and fuel and maintenance costs. A
June 2010 revision to the directive added the requirements that all correctional facilities
implement a “procedure to account for the monthly submission of a completed form” and
that, for central office staff, a completed form “must be submitted to Support Operations
each month.” In addition, the importance of maintaining such vehicle use records was
emphasized in then-Director of State Operations Valerie Grey’s September 18, 2009,
memorandum, in which Grey stated that agencies were expected to “generate transparent
measures of increased accountability in the use of state vehicles.” However, 22 percent
of the superintendents and central office staff interviewed by the Inspector General
indicated that they do not complete a daily vehicle log, in direct contravention of DOCCS
policy.

When asked about maintaining a vehicle log, the then-Lakeview Shock
Correctional Facility superintendent stated, “I know there’s a policy for state vehicles,”
but acknowledged that in his more than 20 years as a superintendent he never kept a log.
The then-Moriah Shock Correctional Facility superintendent testified that he only began
keeping a log after he read a newspaper account of the Inspector General’s investigation,
several days before his interview.

The Inspector General also found a lack of accountability regarding vehicle logs.
Facility compliance with the log requirement is not monitored by central office,

16

The expected number of annual one-way trips applied in the analysis is 450, based on 52 work weeks per
year, 15 official holidays, and a month of vacation and sick leave.

24

essentially placing superintendents in the position of monitoring themselves. At central
office, the administrator to whom executive staff submits vehicle logs acknowledged that
she does not follow up if logs have not been submitted or are incomplete.
The June 2, 2011 Retirement Party
On June 3, 2011, during the pendency of this investigation, the Inspector General
received information that Fischer and numerous other DOCCS staff had used state
vehicles to travel to attend a retirement party for a DOCCS superintendent in western
New York the previous evening. The Inspector General immediately expanded the
investigation to include the circumstances of that event.

The June 2, 2011, party from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at a banquet facility in West
Seneca, Erie County, honored the superintendent of Wende Correctional Facility and the
Wende “hub” of 12 correctional facilities in the region, who was retiring after a 37-year
career at DOCCS. The approximately 325 attendees included 17 DOCCS
superintendents, 16 DOCCS executive staff, and other DOCCS employees. The cost of
the party was covered by a $40 charge, which each of the attendees personally paid. 17
Fischer advised the Inspector General that he considered the June 2 retirement
party and other similar events as agency business that he felt he and a senior deputy were
obligated to attend as part of their official duties. Fischer testified:
It really gets down to the core of the issues. The prison system runs well
because people run it well. People need to believe in each other. To me,
it’s part of the job. I am, and maybe others will argue, my presence is
important. I go around, I shake hands . . . it’s part of leadership, it’s part
of running an agency that, and I know people don’t understand this, but
it’s running an agency that few people want to know about . . . I think that
commissioners, certain other people like [Deputy Commissioner for
Facility Operation] Lucien LeClaire and others, we need to be visible to
the people who run the institutions. And not to be there is almost a slight.
17

As a courtesy, the Commissioner attended this and other retirement parties for free. As Fischer testified
to the Inspector General, “They don’t make me pay, I go to so many, it’s almost like, well it is, it’s a
tradition. I’m a little uncomfortable with it, but it’s a tradition.”

25

Fischer added: “This is a policy issue. I believe that the nature of our organization almost
demands that we’re together – state business.” When the Inspector General asked Fischer
if he was aware of any policy to support his position, he replied, “Written policy?
Probably not.”
Consistent with his opinion that such events are official activities, Fischer traveled
to the June 2, 2011, retirement party in his state-assigned vehicle and charged his
overnight lodging expense to his state-issued credit card. Fischer stated that due to the
length of the trip, he was driven by a DOCCS central office employee, explaining, “If I’m
going to be in the car for more than two to three hours, I have somebody drive so I can
[do] some work.” The employee who drove Fischer also stayed overnight at state
expense.
Fischer testified that he also considered it appropriate for executive staff and
superintendents to use their state-assigned vehicles and to charge the state for all travel
expenses, including overnight lodging, related to their attendance at such retirement
parties. Several DOCCS executive staff interviewed by the Inspector General recalled
that Fischer had communicated this view to the agency’s senior managers in a meeting in
2007, at about the time Fischer was appointed commissioner. With respect to such
parties, a superintendent stated that it is “common philosophy that superintendents are
expected and encouraged to be there.”
Despite Fischer’s position, the Inspector General found that central office
executive staff and facility superintendents lacked a clear understanding of what was
appropriate practice for travel and lodging relating to retirement parties. 18 In fact, a
18

With respect to the related issue of charging leave accruals for time spent traveling to or attending a
work-related social event, the New York State Department of Civil Service Attendance and Leave Manual,
Section 21.12, Paragraph C-4 (“Leave for Social Activities”) provides that the principal executive officer of
an agency has the authority to determine that attendance at such an event “would be beneficial to employee
relations and in the best interests of the department or agency”. If the official so finds, appropriate time off
may be granted to employees to attend without charge to accumulated leave credits. As discussed,
however, Commissioner Fischer was unaware of a formal policy governing permission to attend work-

26

number of these officials who attended the June 2 party expressed to the Inspector
General their reluctance to do so unless they also had scheduled other DOCCS business
in the area at the same time.
The Inspector General interviewed 14 of the central office staff and 10 of the
superintendents who attended the June 2 retirement party. Of the 24 staff interviewed, 16
(including Fischer and the employee who drove him) used a state vehicle for travel to and
from the party; the others drove personal vehicles. Eighteen of the 24 officials stayed
overnight in the vicinity of the party location; four of the 18 personally paid for their
lodging, while 14 charged the state. With the exception of Fischer (and the employee
who drove him) all 14 of the officials who charged the state for their overnight lodging,
including central office staff and superintendents, stated that they conducted DOCCSrelated business (apart from the party) during the travel.
The testimony of attendees at the June 2 party is revealing. The superintendent of
a correctional facility in the Hudson Valley region said he drove his personal vehicle to
and from the party and personally paid for his hotel stay because he believed that, in the
absence of other official business on the trip, charging his expenses to the state violated
accepted practice. A second superintendent stated that it is his practice to use his stateassigned vehicle for travel to and from retirement parties, but he only charges the state for
lodging when he has other business at the time. However, one superintendent stated he
used his personal vehicle to make the more than 300-mile round-trip drive to attend the
party, and did not stay overnight, adding he was unaware of Fischer’s expressed position
on such travel and considered it personal business.
Notably, even then-Deputy Commissioner for Correctional Facilities Lucien
LeClaire was among those officials who diverged from the practice Fischer stated was
permissible. As LeClaire testified:
related social functions, and apparently did not act in specific reliance on the discretion provided to him
under the Civil Service guideline. Even if he had, the Inspector General finds that granting time off to such
a large number of employees to attend the retirement party of one among some five dozen superintendents
in the state to have been an improvident exercise of such discretion

27

Even though I was the [master of ceremonies], and even though the
Commissioner has clearly stated that he considers events like this official
business . . . me just going out there and not doing any site visits
associated with it might be a gray area. So I just felt myself that I would
be better off to pay for that room out of my own pocket.
Records show that Fischer himself conducted other agency business in nearly
every instance when his attendance at a retirement party involved an overnight stay.
From March 2009 to June 2011, Fischer attended 28 of the 40 retirement parties held for
superintendents and executive management staff. On the 10 occasions when Fischer
stayed overnight, he reported conducting other official business in all but one instance,
the sole exception being the June 2, 2011, retirement party in West Seneca.
The Inspector General recognizes that attendance by Fisher and a top deputy at
retirement parties for superintendents has been a traditional practice within DOCCS and
reasonably can be viewed as serving the interests of the agency. However, attendance by
other staff does not serve a similar official purpose, and should not be supported by the
expenditure of state resources.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Assignment of Vehicles to Senior Staff Unnecessary
The Inspector General determined that DOCCS’s practice of assigning vehicles to
approximately 64 correctional facility superintendents and 16 central office staff is not
justified by the actual use of these vehicles, and is inconsistent with state policy.
DOCCS’s vehicle use practice, which has become entrenched over the years, must be
revamped and the assignment of personal vehicles significantly curtailed.
The Inspector General recognizes that the safety and security of the state’s
correctional system cannot be compromised, and that emergencies occur in correctional
facilities requiring an immediate and effective response by DOCCS. However, the
investigation found scant evidence that the assignment of vehicles to superintendents and
28

agency executives aids such responses. Emergencies requiring the presence of the
superintendent are rare, and superintendents and central office executives are not “first
responders” to these events.
The investigation revealed that assigned vehicles are used largely for commuting
between officials’ homes and workstations. A large percentage of the approximately one
million miles incurred by assigned vehicles in the 2009-2010 reporting period was for
commuting. Consequently, the assignment of vehicles to superintendents and executive
staff serves less a correctional purpose and more of an additional, albeit unofficial,
benefit for these individuals, a fact essentially conceded by then-Commissioner Fischer.
Pointedly, the assignment of personal vehicles for commuting, including gasoline and EZPass paid by DOCCS, is a misuse of state resources that should be curtailed.
These findings demonstrate that DOCCS’s practice of assigning vehicles to
individual employees can and should be curtailed. The investigation also underscores the
need for DOCCS to undertake a thorough analysis of its vehicle usage needs. The
Inspector General recommends that DOCCS conduct such an analysis, which should
focus on reducing the use of personal assigned state vehicles as well as improving the
efficiency in pool vehicle use through better allocation and consolidation.
The Inspector General notes that such analysis and fleet reduction should have
occurred as a result of the previous administration’s revised budget policy and its clear
call for significant changes in vehicle use. Regrettably, then-Commissioner Fischer took
no action at the time, and instead, through an inaccurate memorandum, sought
exemptions from the restrictions imposed by the 2009 policy, while maintaining assigned
vehicles for other executive employees absent any approved exemption. DOCCS’s
failure to act then makes the need for reform now all the more critical.
The Inspector General further recommends that DOCCS designate an internal
compliance officer, distinct from DOCCS’s internal control officer, to monitor
compliance with budget directives and to create training programs to ensure adherence to

29

the directives and to promote increased fiscal control and accountability. The training
and compliance should be mandatory for all DOCCS superintendents and facility fiscal
staff, and all central office personnel involved in the implementation of budget directives
and fiscal controls, including the commissioner.

Improper Personal Use of State-Assigned Vehicles
The Inspector General’s investigation also revealed that 23 percent of officials
interviewed misused their assigned vehicles by transporting friends and family members
or engaging in other non-business related travel.
The Inspector General recommends DOCCS review the instances of improper
personal use of vehicles identified in this investigation and consider disciplinary action as
appropriate. DOCCS also should take steps to ensure that all employees are aware of
agency policy prohibiting personal use of official vehicles.
With respect to retirement parties and similar social events, the Inspector General
recognizes that attendance by the commissioner and a top deputy at DOCCS’ expense
arguably serves an agency purpose. However, attendance by large numbers of other staff
members does not serve a similar official purpose and should not be supported by the
expenditure of state resources. DOCCS should promulgate unequivocal policy in this
area and ensure that it is clearly understood by all staff.

Failure to Report Taxable Value of Vehicle Use
The Inspector General found that Fischer and then-Deputy Commissioner for
Correctional Facilities Lucien LeClaire used state vehicles to commute between their
residences and workstations, but did not report or pay taxes associated with this benefit,
as required. In addition, a number of officials incorrectly reported the taxable benefit
resulting from their vehicle use.

30

Deficiencies in Vehicle Record Keeping
Accurate, complete, and timely record keeping of vehicle usage is essential for
DOCCS to manage its large fleet of vehicles effectively and as a means of holding staff
accountable for their vehicle use. The Inspector General found that nearly a quarter of
superintendents and central official executive staff with assigned vehicles failed to
complete a Daily Vehicle Log, contrary to DOCCS regulations.
The Inspector General recommends that DOCCS take steps to ensure that vehicle
use logs and related records are completed as required.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN RESPONSE TO THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL’S FINDINGS
The Inspector General shared the findings and recommendations of this
investigation with DOCCS and assisted DOCCS in formulating corrective action.
DOCCS advised that it has undertaken an analysis of vehicle usage, resulting in a number
of significant actions to address the issues identified in this report, including:
● DOCCS issued a new directive advising executive staff, regional directors, and
superintendents that they would no longer be assigned vehicles, and that all vehicles must
be returned to the agency vehicle pool.
● DOCCS issued a new directive advising that agency vehicles may not be used
to attend social events such as retirement parties.
● DOCCS issued new policy stating that agency officials with assigned vehicles
must log and report for tax purposes all non-business related travel.
● DOCCS updated its vehicle log and reporting procedures to record commuter
usage. DOCCS also expanded its internal compliance unit to review and audit vehicle

31

usage and commercial gas credit card charges to ensure adherence with agency and State
policy.
● DOCCS has conducted training for appropriate staff on budget directives,
fiscal control and accountability, and vehicle usage policy.
● DOCCS provided necessary documentation to Fischer and LeClaire to amend
their tax forms.
● DOCCS has reviewed the conduct of specific employees with regard to the
improper personal use of agency vehicles and is pursuing action as warranted.

32

APPENDIX
The September 18, 2009, memorandum from former Director of State Operations
Valerie Grey to agency heads and DOCCS Commissioner Brian Fischer’s memorandum
of September 25, 2009, to former Deputy Secretary to the Governor and Commissioner
of Criminal Justice Services Denise O’Donnell are reproduced on the following pages.

33

l?Q,(n·~jhl~Ct(
dw. (~~o=)
SrAlE o.,. H• Yo~
EacL111VE cowe.,.
IWW« ........

"'-"ls of SW.. AgenciC$ ..d 'Public A~

Val<Oie Citoy,D.iro<tor

of~ Opooo!i<>4

Offioe ofT-If A...IID!IIbilll)'

•

SVIIJ;I!CJ': Reolood Sla!• llleo& Pollq

DA'l'B:

Soptrmbor 18, 200!1

l\i3 memotaDdwD is 10 bfU11 youi ~tioa 10 tM ~)· ~led DiyiliOll of tile l)ud'S'.
B!>!lM nm Ng. D·1~0 lillll m_pe<~· 14 tbe ~ ""' ODd ~t. ~ al
dispoW of rttde tl$hldu. Tn coutinuing with ~ 3Cria of dirdws la ~gtDCiee. limed aJ
,dvd•s ~ -!j>OOdiJ1$o and climh'larlns frmd aod lllH>.oc in.,_ il"\'CJiliN;I1I..tbe OJIIoc of
Tupoyer ,._...,unul>Uil)' and tho Divisi"" of'll>olludi« baw in<ri!Uiad """"""'Y rm,;..., U>
d>o 1>0li<ioo and~·"" ""!w.d by Divllioll oftbe Bli4&0tl'br~ , _ "')lict...
It is clear tflat aome oftha.o:c rolicicr: aJB a ~c sbift. from pt:evioosly allo~ praclice:t. 1M il
i$ ~·doe!_..,. !'1111-..o ooJy ochio,.,.sa.mp lbrougjl tho !l!ri« OJCiUCI!Imloftho
poli<i<s ucl JIM<- "" forth llllhlJ bulletlo, bul Will olio ......,_ _..... of
- " " ' tcllo.-hlllty iD tbo ..., of~ ve!Uolos. I ask 1bal )'OV p~ d""' Ollmlimllillho
pcllcies ..4 ""' diem u 1l!e !!!l.olm\lm llli>:!aftls .. you dtvelop you< IDdividuol
-"Y fi«t policieo.
·

I
I
I

,.,....ned

lfY<>•..., oz>yquootioaa ~ t b e - of oi.i. bl&llelio. pl-oo"""' Y'>"' bodsa

..,....;nor or YOIII ~ Dcp\11)' St<:!OII!y.

34

1.

OEP~.RTI<ENT OF CGR'!FCTl()N.;l

SuMCES

T..:!. ....tNlf.\.\N :;-TJ..T! C"A,.lJ"'.$ • C!UI..CttfG !
1:21 ~;·.'.<L~HI:o.tC'I (:·.~ A\ 'tiNUI;

.'.lf;oNY. N.Y . i :.2l-20':i(l
SR:AI\· 1-ltiCII.;~
I..,;I(...~~CY,P

Mf" M ORA N.P...l.!..td

TO:

Denise o ·oonn.,ll, Oepuly Sec rF.~

FROM:

Brian Fischer. Commi;sioner

SUBJ:

Slate Fleet POlley

DA lE:

S<!ptemoer 25. 2C09

·

~~,..)',\~ .

After cHrtlful rE<view of tho revl•ed Division of the Budget BPRM Item #D-750 it is
respectftrlly requested thai DOCS ho given ap~ro•tai to assign specific •re~icle9 lo
spec·fc lr>d'viduafs. and (o sea·< appro·1al f!>l a gcnera&ed mnnlficotion d DOB's
polcy ror specialize-:! units.
Sp~ciiical~y. and as previ·Ju'Siy·epproved, the fonowing titled person~ require the use
of stat~ o·--meo vehic.es at all times; Commissioner, Deputy Cornmlsslonor for Faclli~'
Operati on~, Oef=uly Conuui~~ t:mrar ilnd lr.spectof Gcmeral, and CoJonol, Correctional

Emergoncy 1-<espunse Team (CER1'). Each indlvidu•l'• vellicle Is equipped ·Y\r.th
New York St•le PolicG radios ond DOCS radios :o be able to commLinica:e w~h ony
NYSP. unit or trooper car, !mel diredly wiUl eacli o( tbe 69 correc'.ionallaciities. "fhe
positions lho inci•Jiduals held reqrrTe their -..UiiiY to respord to any emer&ency
srtuatlon L'l'ld tc rern.ajn in oorr.rnunicabon at aft tfmQs.

•..vnh respect to .::t 9Fmen-11izflld mod!lic:.lion· cf the poficy. thcfe are specific .titles Qnd
units which requii"Q access to tStette owned vetoicles, or the appmvttl to use personal
·.rehicles. et a moment's nolle&. In thc~e categories are: in~pector G enera: Field
!nvestigoto,., Deputy lr'spec(Of Gene<ol. Albar>y CC:RT m91llbers. nnd the Directo:
and Assislant Director or tile Crisis l n:e.Var.tion Unl II sh01lld be nollld !hat each
s':aff ;, a Peace Officer ""d ore u•oally armoo wt>er. on official b Jsintl$5.
It ,.,,_lid • l•o be pointP-0 o::t 111at facility •upenntendents have oeceso to spectfic
vohicleo as previously aoprove~. and who's a$slgnmerrl is covomd In DOB's policy in
accordanCG 'with Complrolll!r Payro:t Bulletin, Reporting the Taxabl" Value of
Personol Use of E-'lpluy"' Provldeo Vehic~e• and Chauffer Services.

35