The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food says it has already begun to tighten the reins on its livestock inspection program after a legislative audit showed problems with fee collections and deposits, personal use of state vehicles and the purchase of unnecessary horse trailers, ATVs and semi-automatic rifles.
“The weak control structure,” according to the performance audit released Thursday, “would not adequately prevent fraud and abuse from occurring.”
The audit was conducted by the Office of the Legislative Auditor General and revealed that:
• Livestock inspectors were depositing cash fees into their personal accounts and then writing personal checks to the department.
• Livestock inspectors were using state vehicles for personal use.
• The program purchased several “high-dollar assets,” including horse trailers and ATVs, that were never used.
• The program bought 15 AR-15 rifles for $15,000 that inspectors do not use or need.
• Livestock inspectors charged inconsistent amounts for inspections.
• And livestock inspectors were turning in reports and fees months after collecting them.
The issues resulting in lack of oversight of assets and purchasing all took place before 2017, the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food said in its official response, adding that with appointment of new leaders since 2019, “policies are now in place to prevent the potential for abuse.”
UDAF said that incoming Commissioner Craig Buttars — appointed by new Gov. Spencer Cox — “looked forward to this audit to help us find deficiencies in our program and ways for us to improve.”
This is not the first review that shows oversight problems at UDAF.
In November, the state auditor release a sweeping investigation of the department under the leadership of former Commissioner Kerry Gibson. It identified potential problems with the cannabis grower selection process, inappropriate use of state cars, and questionable travel practices.
The job of livestock inspectors — part of the department’s animal industry division — is to verify the ownership or “brand” of horses and cattle whenever the animals are sold, taken to slaughter or moved across state lines.
The fees collected for these inspections are then used to fund the program. In fiscal 2020, more than $1.077 million was collected by inspectors.
Auditors called for the immediate improvement in fee collections after they discovered “commingling of funds” to be a routine practice.
Brand inspectors deposit cash receipts into their own bank accounts and then sent personal checks to UDAF, the audit said. “Commingling of funds is a control weakness that should be avoided.”
UDAF said it has established a statewide bank account and started an electronic fee collection system, which has brought the program into compliance.
The report also listed several examples of inspectors submitting certificates and fees months after being conducted.
“After reviewing all brand inspection receipts for fiscal year 2020, we found that 352 brand certificate receipts were sent in late,” the report said, “accounting for more than half of all receipts in 2020.”
Brand inspectors also have been inconsistent when charging for inspections, which are a minimum of $20 per stop.
In southern Utah, for example, if multiple ranchers are at the same feedlot, the inspector will charge each of them the $20 fee, auditors explained.
By contrast, if there are multiple ranchers at a northern Utah feedlot, only one rancher is charged the $20 fee, while the other ranchers will be charged per head.
UDAF said an electronic brand inspection system was put into place in December 2020 that automatically calculates correct fees and eliminates over- and undercharging.
The audit also dinged the monitoring and purchase of firearms.
The brand inspection program had 10 full-time brand inspectors — nine of whom are certified by Peace Officer Standards and Training. Part-time brand inspectors are not POST-certified.
Each of the POST-certified inspectors is equipped with a sidearm and a shotgun. According to statute, the brand inspectors may, if needed, stop any vehicle carrying livestock or livestock carcasses for the purpose of examining brands.
Over the past 17 years, however, the brand inspection program bought several “high-dollar assets” that were never used, including four horse trailers — one that cost $15,310 — and an ATV, which ran $7, 249.
Two other ATVs — costing $6,599 each — were used only once.
In 2017, the animal industry division also purchased 15 AR-15 semi-automatic rifles for POST-certified inspectors at a cost of nearly $15,000.
However, inspectors do not use or need them, the audit states. Most of the inspectors do not take the rifle with them in their vehicles. Instead, the rifles are left at home in a secure case.
Auditors contacted Wyoming, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Montana and found that none of those states issues rifles to brand inspectors. Most equip the employees with sidearms and shotguns.
The current division director and department management confirm that there is no justifiable reason for inspectors to have a rifle, the audit states.
The UDAF also has had to improve how it keeps track of its weapons.
The audit discovered that one AR-15 was still in the possession of the previous director of the division. The person was still employed at UDAF but not in a POST-certified role. “This situation constitutes a concerning lack of control over weapons and official law enforcement identification that must be corrected.”
UDAF says it created new policies in September 2020 that requires employees to surrender firearms when they retire or are terminated. The UDAF also adopted a policy this month that requires employees to surrender guns if they change jobs within the department.
