Montgomery County’s Department of Health and Human Services paid a contractor $137,000 for four separate projects that officials cannot prove were completed, according to an inspector general report released Tuesday.
AssistantInspector General Charles Becker found multiple problems with the county’s use of Maryland Community Mental Health Grant funds to pay for contract work performed by Health Management Consultants over the past three years.
The company billed for projects including a consumer satisfaction survey, management consulting services and a technical assistance review for a family services agency. But outside of a final copy of one undated report linked to the consumer satisfaction survey, the inspector general’s staff could not verify any of the projects.
“… We found no support that the DHHS contract managers who approved HMC invoices totaling $137,700 ensured that the required deliverables were ever received by DHHS,” the report said.
During the investigation, IG’s staff was told by the company’s executive vice president that HMC had submitted invoices before work was completed and shortly before the end of the fiscal year, because he believed that if the money was not spent by then, it would go back to the state and no longer be available.
HMC officials did not respond to several requests for comment Tuesday from The Examiner.
The report says county health officials told him such behavior occurs and is “sleight of hand with the right intention.” State officials, however, told the IG that this activity could result in local health departments being required to repay the funds to the state.
Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg said the matter was especially “concerning” because so much of the county’s behavioral health work is done by contractors.
Inspector General Tom Dagley said in light of the report, he will be conducting a further review of DHHS payments to vendors.
Uma Ahluwalia, director of Montgomery’s Health and Human Services Department, said in a written response to the report that she was instilling several new safeguards to prevent this from happening in the future and that several inappropriate payments were authorized by staff reporting to people who are no longer working for the county.
“We are currently evaluating what the appropriate action is for other staff that remain with the county and were involved with these payments,” Ahluwalia wrote. “We are consulting with the County Attorney’s Office to determine if we are able to seek repayment from the vendor.”
She told The Examiner: “This is why we have an inspector general.”
