This WRAL story highlights state government waste relating to the state’s motor fleet.
North Carolina’s state motor fleet is more than 8,500 vehicles strong and travels more than 100 million miles each year.
A WRAL News investigation found that some state agencies paid millions for miles they did not drive and others had questionable record-keeping practices.
….
The motor fleet charges agencies for 1,050 miles per car per month. The mileage rate depends on the type of car. If the car is driven more than 1,050 miles, the agency pays for each mile over the limit. If the car is driven less than 1,050, the agency still gets charged the flat fee.
So the 1,050 miles per month is a use-it-or-lose-it kind of deal. Such a system does two things:1) it provides an incentive for state agencies to drive their cars more, after all the mileage is paid for; and 2) if the mileage is not used, say during budget cutbacks, state agencies still pay for the unused miles – meaning that state revenue that could have been spent elsewhere is being tied up paying for miles that weren’t used.
There is no question that the practices discussed here are wasting the tax dollars the state takes from each and every one of us. I do disagree with the implication of your comments that the motor fleet is to blame or is cheating state agencies. An important point from the WRAL article that was not mentioned is “The state motor fleet is receipt-driven and gets no money from the state’s general fund.” Therefore the fleet is possibly the closest thing you can find to the private sector in state government, and may be a model to be copied elsewhere.
It is the state agencies that order cars from the fleet that are most to blame for the waste. They are in effect leasing the vehicle from the fleet and are thus responsible for the costs. If they don’t need the vehicle then they should be held responsible for their poor management. In the private sector a manager that consistently over budgets pays the price; usually with his/her job. Until we establish procedure to hold the managers of these agencies responsible for how OUR money is spent, with incentive for managing costs and punishments of unacceptable waste, we will continue to see this type of behavior.
Well said, Robert.
One thing to clarify regarding the “receipt-driven” comment, however.
Just because a program is receipt supported does not mean it doesn’t impact taxpayers when money is wasted. If the motor fleet could save millions with better management, then that would mean millions of dollars from those agency’s receipts could be freed up to flow to the General fund – thus reducing the need for more tax dollars to finance General Fund expenditures.