Harry Otto Archives - Missourinet

Audit will probe Corrections Department execution procedures, drug procurement (AUDIO)

January 13, 2014 By Mike Lear

Death penalty opponents and attorneys representing condemned men say the Missouri Department of Corrections is keeping too many secrets and could be breaking state law in the way it’s obtaining drugs to carry out lethal injections. The State Auditor’s Office will explore some of those issues in the course of the audit of Corrections announced last week.

The State Auditor’s Office could look at the executions of Joseph Paul Franklin (left) and Allen Nicklasson during the course of the audit it is conducting of the Department of Corrections.

Media reports say the Department acquired the pentobarbital used in the execution of Joseph Paul Franklin in November from a compounding pharmacy in Oklahoma that is not licensed in Missouri. This has some officials asking whether that violates state law or falls into some sort of “gray area.”

Deputy State Auditor Harry Otto says the audit can include any executions that fall in its timeframe, the two fiscal years that will end June 30. That would include the execution of Franklin and the execution of Allan Nicklasson December 11, as well as any executions that happen through June 30. The only other execution for which a date has been set is that of Herbert Smulls, scheduled to happen January 29.

“There is a fair amount of public interest in this subject,” Otto says, “so we’ll look to see whether the Department has followed its own policies and procedures with respect to the execution protocol. The changes that they made … did they make them pursuant to their own policies and procedures? And we’ll try to evaluate whether or not there was any violation of state law.”

How deeply auditors will explore execution procedures depends on what they learn as the investigation is conducted.

“An auditor keeps probing until he feels he’s gotten the full story,” says Otto. “If we ask questions and they lead to further questions which leads to another angle or pursuing that to the ultimate answer … we keep going until we get the answer. If we picked one … and there are some unanswered questions, it’s likely we would pick the next one and see if that was repeated or if that was isolated.”

State law provides that some components of execution procedures be kept confidential, such as the identities of members of the execution team. Otto says his office has the authority to find out things that members of the public or the media could not because of those protections. That doesn’t mean that information would become public, however.

“There’s still confidentiality with respect to what you tell the auditor. That doesn’t always get published,” Otto tells Missourinet. “When we learn of things that are otherwise protected and they become part of our work papers, they remain protected. In other words, simply because we got the identities of certain parties, that doesn’t mean we’re going to publish those identities in our report, nor can our work papers be [obtained in a Sunshine Law request].”

Otto says if any violations of law are made public, the Auditor’s Office would refer them to the proper law enforcement agency. An audit report could be ready by this fall.

Listen to the interview with Harry Otto, 11:16

State auditor slams management of Missouri Quality Jobs program (AUDIO)

July 3, 2012 By Mike Lear

The State Auditor says the economic development department is mismanaging the Quality Jobs tax incentive program and overplaying its results.

Deputy State Auditor Harry Otto

Quality Jobs tax incentives are available for employers who create or retain full-time jobs, pay at least half the health insurance premium for them and pay at least the average wage in the county. Employers can receive tax credits or hold onto income tax withheld from the employees it keeps or hires.

Deputy Auditor Harry Otto says when an employer applies to the program it offers an estimate of the number of jobs it expects to create or retain. “Later the employers have to report the actual numbers of jobs retained, jobs created, dollars spent. What we’re saying is when you look at the actual numbers after the fact they are less than the projected numbers.”

The audit says those are the figures used to measure the economic impact of the program and calls them “significantly overstated.”

Since the program was launched in 2005 DED has approved projects touted to create 45,646 jobs. According to the annual report on the program that estimate has been reduced by 18,960. So far, just over 7,000 jobs have actually been created.

It also says DED is not providing enough oversight into whether companies getting the credits are eligible for them. Otto explains, “We, I think, pointed out one where there’s still a disagreement as to whether or not the jobs were rolled I think from a parent to a subsidiary or from a subsidiary to a parent, that we don’t think that really the jobs were created. They were moved from one company shell to another.”

The auditor’s office also didn’t like how the employers DED authorizes to retain the income taxes they withhold account for it. Otto says, “The employer then reports to Department of Revenue … they’re the ones that are the tax collectors of the state. We think there should be more communication between DED and DOR to determine that the proper amount of withholding occurred and that the employer who created and/or retained jobs has retained the proper amount.”

See the “Citizen’s Summary” of the Auditor’s report here.

The auditor’s office gave the program’s administration a “poor” rating, making it the first state program to recieve that rating. Otto empasized that isn’t an assessment of the program, but how it’s been run. “That they could do a better job by acting responsibly with respect to a quicker turnaround or reporting of the information and then giving the General Assembly updated information all the time and not just relying on the initial estimates that were projected by the employers who said they would create or retain jobs.”

Otto says the findings were not well received by the Department. “We were told by DED in some cases the entire program hasn’t unfolded yet, so you can’t really look back and tell the entire thing is over but we say they should update their numbers … the numbers that they give to the General Assembly, because the General Assembly’s making decision based on these projections and if the projections turn out fo be inflated or too high, the General Assembly ought to know that.”

The auditor’s office also says data should be reported in a more timely manner. Otto says, “(DED) has established a November date for receiving information from employers and we think that’s too much time … we think that they could improve reporting by establishing an earlier date to have that information submitted to them.”

Missourinet’s call to the Department of Economic Development has not been returned. View its response to the audit along with the rest of the report from the Auditor’s Office here.

AUDIO: Mike Lear interviews Deputy State Auditor Harry Otto, 10:09

Auditor’s Office releases review of 5 agencies’ year-end spending

June 7, 2012 By Mike Lear

The State Auditor’s Office has released its findings in a review of how five state agencies made purchases at the end of fiscal year 2010. The one-time audit included the Departments of Corrections, Mental Health and Revenue, the Office of Administration and the Office of State Courts Administrator.

Deputy State Auditor Harry Otto

Deputy State Auditor Harry Otto explains the goal. “There’s always been a rumor or legend that some agencies might just go ahead and spend money just to spend money and not lose it so that their appropriations don’t lapse.”

The audit didn’t find that money was being wasted, but Otto says some expenditures might be being made earlier than necessary. For example, he says the Department of Revenue stockpiled postage that wasn’t needed immediately.

Otto contrasts it to when a private industry uses “just in time inventory.” “They would only acquire inventory shortly before they needed it. They don’t let it just sit on the shelf. In this case we saw where Revenue did buy a lot of stamps, a lot of postage, towards the end of the year which they didn’t need for a period of time after the end of the year.”

In another instance, the Office of Administration wrote a check for more than $45 thousand in FY 2010 but held it for three months because the project was not finished. Otto says that was to keep the unspent portion of OA’s appropriation from going back into General Revenue with the start of the new fiscal year, July 1 of 2010.

“They may hate to lose money that they didn’t get to spend because the timing wasn’t right, but the state doesn’t allow you to pay for a service until it’s been performed. The question is whether or not they should have paid it in the year in which they paid it.”

View the Auditor’s office’s report.

The Auditor’s office is recommending that the Office of Administration consider legislation, regulations, policies and procedures to guide state agencies in the timing of purchases.

Otto says the agencies are “running a little bit by the seat of their pants as to risking the loss of the appropriation if they don’t spend it now even though they don’t really need it now. They’re in a tough situation as to whether or not they ought to go ahead and spend the money and hope they get it appropriated again or not spend the money and risk not getting it appropriated, then they wouldn’t have the funds to purchase what they truly need.”