Report: Pender County trooper one of eight who violated policy

PENDER COUNTY, NC (WWAY) — An audit of the North Carolina Highway Patrol revealed eight troopers, including one from Pender County, violated residency travel policy.

According to the investigative report, the investigation began when the Office of the State Auditor received a hotline complaint alleging troopers were violating policy by driving excessive distances from their primary residences to their duty stations.

The audit found that in 2016, eight troopers did not live within the county of their assigned area, or within 20 miles from the county line of their assigned area.

One of the troopers listed on the report lives in Watha and would travel around 86 miles to the Wake County line.

By not following the residency policy, troopers unnecessarily increased commuting miles on their State Highway Patrol vehicles, which meant higher fuel and maintenance costs, the audit found.

The investigation also found supervisors failed to enforce the residency policy, which allowed the troopers to commute between their primary residences and their assigned duty stations. Some supervisors did not know if the troopers had completed the HP-740 form for their primary residences. Other supervisors said troopers simply did not have the form completed for their primary residence. An HP-740 is a request to reside outside county of assigned duty station.

By not enforcing the residency policy, management created an environment where subordinate troopers were able to rationalize noncompliance or completely disregard the policy, the report states.

The audit recommends:

• Management  should consider increasing monitoring efforts to ensure compliance with the residency policy. Management should consider re-writing the policy to include exceptions for certain administrative positions
• Management should consider placing Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) devices on all State Highway Patrol vehicles to monitor proper vehicle usage
• Management should consider disciplinary action against troopers for knowingly violating policy and supervisors for not adequately enforcing policy
• Management should ensure an appropriate tone at the top relative to the residency policy. The commander, majors, and captains should ensure they are compliant with the residency policy before expecting compliance from subordinate personnel
• Management should consider reviewing primary and secondary addresses of all troopers in an effort to identify potential noncompliance. If troopers are found to be
  out of compliance with the residency policy, management should consider corrective action to enforce accountability
• Management should consider recommunication of the residency policy in a manner which will reach all intended troopers

In response,NC Department of Public Safety  Secretary Erik Hooks sent a letter to the State Auditor’s office, writing in part, “I do not dispute any of the findings as set out in your report. As you know, however, each of the violations detailed in your report occurred prior to my appointment as Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and prior to Colonel Glenn McNeil assuming command of the Highway Patrol. That being said, I want to assure you… we agree with the recommendations contained therein and I am pleased to report that each of the employees referred to in your report are currently in compliance with policy.”

The letter goes on to say the Highway Patrol command staff has communicated a clear message that the residency policy is to be strictly and evenly enforced and that troopers who violate the policy or supervisors who fail to enforce the policy will be dealt with appropriately.

As for GPS devices on State Highway Patrol vehicles, Hooks said he wasn’t opposed to them and has discussed the benefits, which includes officer safety, but the cost associated to implement this is not within the Highway Patrol’s budget.