Dallas committee seeks formal ‘management alert’ process after procurement lapse at Executive Airport

At a meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on General Investigating and Ethics, members reviewed a proposal from Interim Inspector General Baron Eliasson to formalize a system for issuing, tracking and following up on ‘‘management alerts’’ produced by the Office of Inspector General.

Eliasson said the alerts are intended to convert investigative findings into actionable items for department managers and to ensure council receives timely follow-up. "If the accountability tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, there's been no accountability," Eliasson said, framing the need for clearer procedures and oversight.

Committee members pressed for specific timelines and visibility. Council member Blair asked whether the plan's five-day item would be an acknowledgment of receipt, and whether ‘‘five days’’ meant business or calendar days; Eliasson agreed a five-calendar-day acknowledgment would be appropriate. Members also asked for more frequent reporting than quarterly; Eliasson said the IG currently produces monthly reports and would ensure council receives them.

The committee reviewed draft SOP elements Eliasson presented: approval and documentation procedures that route a proposed alert to the inspector general for sign-off; a short acknowledgment period followed by a 30–60 day expectation for an initial management response (with recognized exceptions); and a tracking mechanism, using the auditor's Diligent system where feasible, to monitor implementation and reporting. Eliasson said the office will solicit feedback from frequent recipient departments such as procurement and human resources, finalize SOP language, train investigators and analysts, and identify any needed changes to Chapter 12A of the city code.

Committee members and the audit office discussed how alerts should be categorized and followed. Deputy City Auditor Martha Smarts described the auditor's existing approach: audit recommendations are assigned high, moderate or low risk; high-risk items typically receive follow-up between six and 18 months to verify implementation and effectiveness, while moderate and low items are tracked by the city controller's office. Smarts cautioned that auditors can recommend and follow up but cannot force management to implement changes.

The committee considered a specific management-alert example presented by Assistant Inspector General Laura Phelan involving work at the Dallas Executive Airport. Phelan said the OIG received a complaint and found that a master agreement did not include concrete in its scope; the concrete portion exceeded the city's $50,000 threshold for formal solicitation and exceeded the $100,000 threshold that would have required council approval. The transcript records the paid amount unclearly; the assistant inspector general said the vendor appeared to have charged an excessive fee and that required procurement steps were not followed. Phelan said the OIG recommended the interim city manager and mayor/council take appropriate action and recommended mandatory procurement training (annual or biannual) because several employees reported confusion about procurement rules.

Members noted that a ratification related to the procurement alert was prepared for a council agenda but removed before council could review it, which limited council visibility and contributed to the lack of follow-up. The committee emphasized that the new management-alert process should prevent similar lapses by ensuring alerts are routed to the council-appointed employee for the affected department and by making the status and timelines transparent to council.

Eliasson said the IG will seek alignment with the city auditor's processes and metrics so council sees comparable tracking across audits and management alerts. The committee agreed to begin a formal review of Chapter 12A after the new year and to prioritize finalizing the management-alert SOP so alerts will have a clear home and follow-up path. The meeting adjourned at 1:47 p.m.

Next steps identified: refine timeframes (acknowledgment and response), integrate alerts in the auditor/controller tracking system (Diligent), finalize SOP language, provide training for investigators/department staff, and begin Chapter 12A revisions in a working group with the Ethics Advisory Commission.