OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
City of Albuquerque

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT
BODY-WORN CAMERA PROCUREMENT

505-768-ESA1 (505-768-3721)

www.cabq.gov/inspectorgeneral

 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
ABUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT
BODY-WORN CAMERA PROCUREMENT
CASE NO. 14-207

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
Executive Summary

2

OIG Investigative Report

4

Appendix

21

City Responses

22

Cautionary Statement

27

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
City of Albuquerque
P.O. Box 1293, Suite 5025
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
Telephone: (505) 768-3150
Fax: (505) 768-3158

Peter Pacheco
Acting Inspector General

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) conducted an investigation into the Former
Albuquerque Police Chief and his relationship with TASER International, Inc. (“TASER”). This
investigation sought to determine:
1. Whether or not the Former Chief violated the City’s Conflict of Interest Ordinance in his
dealings with TASER International, Inc.
2. Whether the Former Chief used his influence to assist TASER in its dealings with the
City.
The investigation focused on the relationship between the Former Chief and TASER from the
initial test phase of the TASER Axon-Flex cameras up through the execution of the $1.9 million
contract.
Investigative Findings
1. The Former Chief accepted meals or other gratuities from TASER while still employed
by the City. This is a probable violation of City’s Administrative Instruction No. 3-12,
Section 3(B), which states, “It is prohibited to accept at a suppliers expense travel,
accommodations, meals and all other gratuities.
2. The Former Chief represented TASER after his retirement date of January 1, 2014. The
Former Chief was under contract as a paid consultant with TASER to present at events
and promote TASER products. This is a probable violation of § 3-3-7 of the City’s
Conflict of Interest Ordinance, which restricts a former employee from representing any
person or business for one year after the employee’s date of termination in connection
with a matter in which the employee performed an official act.
3. APD employees accepted meals or other gratuities from TASER. This a violation of the
City’s Administrative Instruction No. 3-12, Section 3(B), which prohibits City employees
from accepting, travel, accommodations, meals and all other gratuities at a suppliers
Office of Inspector General

Page 2

 expense.
4. APD’s initial purchase of 75 Axon-Flex cameras and associated services from TASER
totaling $106,855 bypassed the City’s competitive procurement process. APD’s initial
purchase of 75 Axon-Flex cameras was improperly purchased from a Sole Source
contract that did not include Axon-Flex cameras or services.
5. APD was overcharged $25,243 for overlapping Evidence.com services associated with
the initial purchase of cameras from TASER.
Conclusion
The Former Chief’s dealings with TASER indicate probable violations of City rules and
regulations. This investigation identified that the Former Chief was a paid consultant for TASER
while in early retirement leave and continued to be a paid consultant within a year after his
retirement.
Additionally, as the primary decision maker for the Albuquerque Police Department, evidence
shows that the Former Chief’s support for TASER was pivotal in the procurement process and
may have benefited TASER’s relationship with the City of Albuquerque.

Office of Inspector General

Page 3

 CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE
Office of Inspector General
P.O. BOX 1293, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87103

May 11, 2015
Accountability in Government Oversight Committee
City of Albuquerque
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Special Investigation: Albuquerque Police Department
Body-Worn Camera Procurement
14-207

Final

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
Introduction
The Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) was contacted by Councilor Dan Lewis on April 25,
2014, requesting an investigation. Councilor Lewis requested that the OIG look into the actions
of the former Albuquerque Police Chief to determine whether or not the Former Chief violated
the City’s Conflict of Interest Ordinance in his dealings with TASER International, Inc.
(“TASER”). In addition, Councilor Lewis asked that the OIG investigate whether the Former
Chief used his influence to assist TASER in its dealings with the City.
There was also a request from Councilor Ken Sanchez that the Office of Internal Audit (“OIA”)
initiate an audit into the procurement process surrounding the City’s purchase contract with
TASER for lapel cameras and related equipment. Councilor Sanchez also requested for an
independent review from the New Mexico Office of the State Auditor (“OSA”).
Following the requests, the OIG reached out to the OSA and the OIA to establish a line of
communication and requested that the departments work collaboratively in this investigation to
decrease the burden throughout the review process. The OIG has worked closely with the OIA
and the OSA throughout this investigation.
Office of Inspector General

Page 4

 The OIG and the OIA identified several findings relating to the same issues. The component
relating to Councilor Lewis’s request is addressed in depth in the OIG findings. The OIA’s report
will contain more in-depth information related to their objectives and scope of work. The
findings to OIA’s report will be published in report number 14-107.
Methodology
Our report is based on information gathered.
 Review of documents,
 Review of emails,
 Approximately 46 individuals were contacted for interviews and/or documentation, and
 Review City Ordinance, Administrative Instructions, and other City Policies and
Procedures pertaining to APD’s TASER procurement.
Our investigation was conducted in accordance with fraud investigation techniques, which
include-but are not limited to examination of records, documents, interviews with appropriate
personnel, and other evidence-gathering procedures as necessary under the circumstances.

BACKGROUND
TASER International, Inc.
TASER International, Inc., (“TASER”) based out of Scottsdale Arizona is the vendor for
conducted electrical weapons (electroshock weapons) and Axon-Flex cameras. APD’s
relationship with TASER began in 2007 with a contract related directly with the purchase of
TASER electroshock weapons, accessories and repair. In October 2012, APD began testing and
evaluating TASER’s Axon-Flex cameras and Evidence.com. Evidence.com is a division of
TASER that provides secure digital evidence management for TASER products.
Former Chief
The Former Chief began working for the Albuquerque Police Department (“APD”) in 1982 and
originally retired from APD in 2003. Shortly after his retirement, the Former Chief went to work
for the Scottsdale, Arizona, Police Department. In 2005, he was rehired by APD as Chief of
Police. He remained employed with the City until his retirement on January 1, 2014.
APD and TASER Axon-Flex Cameras
In early 2011, APD began wide-use of the Scorpion body-worn camera. Officers began wearing
the cameras and recording in limited situations. APD later mandated that officers record all calls
for service. This mandate was difficult to implement using the Scorpion cameras due to their
battery life and recording memory limitations. Thus, APD began looking for other camera
options in 2012.
Office of Inspector General

Page 5

  September 2012: APD received four TASER Axon-Flex cameras for testing and
evaluating purposes.
 October 2012 and November 2012:
cameras.

APD tests and evaluates TASER Axon-Flex

 November: APD received four additional Axon-Flex cameras for testing and evaluation.
 November 2012: The Former Chief asked for a roadmap to implement TASER AxonFlex cameras by February 15, 2013.
 March 2013: APD purchased 75 Axon-Flex cameras at a cost of $106,855 and received
one year of Evidence.com at no charge.
 September 2013: APD signs a 5-year subscription based contract for Evidence.com at a
cost of $1.9 million and received 525 Axon-Flex cameras at no charge.

FINDINGS
1.

BASED ON INFORMATION REVIEWED, DURING THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2013
THROUGH JANUARY 1, 2014, THE FORMER CHIEF ACCEPTED MEALS AND
GRATUTIES WHILE CONSIDERED AN ACTIVE EMPLOYEE ON EARLY RETIREMENT
LEAVE.
APD’s Former Chief was a paid contractor for TASER while he was on early retirement leave
and considered an active employee for the City of Albuquerque. According to TASER’s Chief
Operating Officer, as a paid consultant, the Former Chief was paid $1,000 per day plus expenses
for presenting at events and promoting TASER products.
In early retirement leave, City employees are allowed to use accrued vacation and sick leave to
extend their employment with the City and gain additional service credits towards retirement.
Employees may use all or a portion of their accrued vacation and sick leave with any remaining
amount paid out at their retirement date. The Former Chief entered into early retirement leave
on September 7, 2013 and officially retired from the City on January 1, 2014. During his early
retirement leave, the City contributed over $18,000 to the Former Chief’s insurance and
retirement benefits.
On September 17, 2013, ten days into the Former Chief’s early retirement leave, TASER offered
the Former Chief a consult for fee contract to include monetary compensation as well as
expenses.
While on early retirement leave, September 7, 2013 through December 31, 2013, the Former
Chief presented at three events for TASER. In his presentations, the Former Chief promoted
TASER products by talking about APD’s experiences. For these presentations, the Former Chief
received $1,000 a day plus airfare/travel, food/beverage, and lodging from TASER.

Office of Inspector General

Page 6

 INFORMATION PROVIDED BY TASER

As the Former Chief did contract work for TASER and was still considered a City employee
while on early retirement leave, accepting meals or other gratuities from a current or potential
vendor is a probable1 violation of the City’s Administrative Instruction No. 3-12, Section 3(B),
which states, “It is prohibited to accept at a suppliers expense travel, accommodations, meals and
all other gratuities.”
The OIG reviewed the City’s Human Resources Department files and APD personnel files to see
if the Former Chief had completed an outside employment form as mandated by the City’s
Conflict of Interest Ordinance, no form was found in either file.
§ 3-3-10 OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT
No employee shall engage in outside employment without prior approval of the Chief
Administrative Officer, or a designee of the Chief Administrative officer….
The OIG also asked the Chief Administration Officer (“CAO”) if the Former Chief ever
informed him or anyone within the City’s administration that he was going to be a paid contactor
with a City vendor during his early retirement. The CAO replied: “no consent or permission was
ever provided by me to the Chief, if indeed one was required.”
Human Resources Department Verification
To verify if the Former Chief was still considered a City employee, the OIG contacted the City’s
Human Resources Department (“HR”) on October 21, 2014 and asked the following:
If an employee decides to retire or leave the City and they have accumulated vacation and
sick leave, when are they considered not to be a City employee? Is it when they physically
leave, when they receive their last paycheck or when they stop accruing service credit in
PERA?
HR responded on October 23, 2014:
There are two options when retiring from the City of Albuquerque:
1

Definition of “probable” used by OIG: supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not
proof.
Definition of “presumption” used by OIG: a belief that something is true even though it has not been proved.
Office of Inspector General

Page 7

 Option 1
If you work up until your retirement date your last day as a City employee is your
termination date.
Example: Termination Date 12/31/2014 Retirement Date 1/1/2015
(PERA retirements are always on the first day of the month).
Option 2
If your retire from the City of Albuquerque using the Early Retirement option, where one
can exhaust their accumulated sick and vacation until their actual retirement date they are
considered an active employee until their retirement date.
Example: You may enter Early Retirement on 10/18/2014 your hard retirement
date is 7/1/2015. You are still considered a city employee until 6/30/2015 your
termination date.
In speaking with HR, the OIG does recognize that some City employees who enter into early
retirement leave may work during that time period. The Former Chief in his capacity as Police
Chief was working on a multi-million dollar contract with the vendor weeks before his early
retirement, and working as a paid contractor for the vendor during his early retirement leave.
According to City regulations, that is a probable conflict of interest. At a minimum, there is an
appearance of impropriety.
BASIS FOR FINDING
1. HR People Soft documentation for Raymond Schultz states; Effective Date : 12/31/2014,
Job Code: U00205 Chief of Police as job title.
2. Email sent to then HR Director on October 21, 2014: If an employee decides to retire or
leave the City and they have accumulated vacation and sick leave, when are they
considered not to be a City employee? Is it when they physically leave, when they
receive their last paycheck or when they stop accruing service credit in PERA?
Email response from HR employee on October 23, 2014: If your retire from the City of
Albuquerque using the Early Retirement option, where one can exhaust their accumulated
sick and vacation until their actual retirement date they are considered an active employee
until their retirement date. (emphasis added)
3. A comparison of pre-early retirement pay stubs and post-early retirement pay stubs shows
no difference whatsoever other than no accumulation of vacation or sick leave. All
amounts and deductions are identical.
4. Human Resources, “Employee Notification of Retirement” states 01/01/2014 as the
retirement date.

Office of Inspector General

Page 8

 5. The Former Chief’s City email account was still receiving email several months after he
went into early retirement. For example, an Assistant City Attorney assigned to APD
sent the Former Chief an email on October 17, 2013 to his City email account. The email
was only addressed to the Former Chief and regarded City Business. According to the
City’s Technology and Innovation Division, the Former Chiefs City email account was
disabled on November 21, 2013.
6. Personnel Rules and Regulations §403.10 states: Immediately prior to retirement from
active service with the City of Albuquerque an employee may take leave with pay
equivalent to the amount of sick and vacation leave the employee has accumulated.
The rule demonstrates that a person participating in “early retirement” is
a) Still an employee;
b) Is in active service;
c) Is merely on leave.
7. The Former Chief’s Employee Clearance Form is not complete. Sections 4a. “City
Property Turned In”, 4b. “Debt Action Required”, and 4c. “Other” are blank.
According to the City’s Personnel Rules and Regulation §807; CLEARANCE
PROCESSING; “On the last day of work employees must process out of City
employment by completing and submitting a Clearance Form to the appropriate offices as
instructed on the form. During this process the employee must return all pagers, cellular
phones, hand held computers, portable computers, equipment , keys, supplies, card keys
and all other City issued equipment.
8. City legal assigned to OIG states that finding that a salaried employee merely on early
retirement leave is still an employee is a “reasonable interpretation” given the facts
developed by OIG, the ambiguity of the rules and regulations, and the facts there was no
clearly established law on point.
Solicitation for Employment
The Former Chief, while still in his capacity as Chief, was soliciting work from TASER through
his City email. This is a probable violation of the City’s ordinance.
§ 5-5-22 ETHICAL CONDUCT.
In the procurement of goods, services and construction for the city, all City employees shall
comply with the rules of ethical conduct set out in § 3-3-1 et seq., ROA 1984, Conflict of
Interest. In addition, the following ethical provisions shall also apply to all city procurements:

Office of Inspector General

Page 9

 (A) Employee conflict of interest. It shall be unlawful for any city employee to participate
directly or indirectly in a procurement when the employee knows that:
(1) The employee or any member of the employee's immediate family has a financial
interest pertaining to the procurement; or
(2) Any other person, business, or organization with whom the employee or any
member of an employee's immediate family is negotiating or has an arrangement
concerning prospective employment is involved in the procurement.
The following is correspondence from three emails dated August 28, 2013, between the Former
Chief and a TASER Executive.










Former Chief: My last day with Albuquerque PD is September 6th as I will be retiring.
Former Chief: I will however, still have the ear of the Mayor and CAO on department
issues (at least through the election), so if you run into any problems give me a shout.
Former Chief: If there is anything I can do for you or TASER, especially to talk about
my/our experiences please let me know.
TASER Executive: We are going in front of Albuquerque City Council next Thursday at
10am for a final presentation to the board for going full deployment of the cameras. Any
insight would be very helpful (and APD Fiscal Manager seems very confident it will go
through).
Former Chief: As for the TRC meeting next week, yes everything has been greased so it
should go without any issues.
TASER Executive: As for TASER, we are always in need of progressive thinkers and
great presenters (and you fit the bill!). I would like to discuss more about using your
success stories and PVRs to present to other agencies around the country. I will bring
this up to the CEO next time we have a meeting. Is consulting something you would
consider?
Former Chief: Sure, my experiences with the trials and tribulations of implementation I
think could be valuable to Chiefs and Sheriffs along with city administrators.

When the OIG contacted the Former Chief for an interview by email, the Former Chief declined
to be interviewed. The Former Chief’s attorney stated, “Until that investigation [by the New
Mexico Attorney General’s Office] is completed, I have directed [the Former Chief] to decline
addressing all inquiries about the Taser [sic] contract. My advice includes any questions which
the Office of Inspector General and Office of Internal Audit seek to ask.
Recommendations
 The CAO should direct HR to revise retirement documents to include information
explaining the prohibition against representing any person or business in connection
with a matter in which a former employee performed an official act, unless the
Chief Administrative Office consents to such representation.
 The CAO should direct HR to clarify what City policies apply to an employee in
early retirement.

Office of Inspector General

Page 10

  The City should consider revising the City Conflict of Interest Ordinance to include
prohibition against solicitation of employment from a vendor in which the City
employee has direct decision making authority and/or performed an official act.
2.

BASED ON INFORMATION REVIEWED, THE FORMER CHIEF REPRESENTED TASER
WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER HIS RETIREMENT DATE OF JANUARY 1, 2014, WHICH IS
A PROBABLE VIOLATION OF CITY ORDINANCE.
The Former Chief did not give written notice to the CAO regarding his contractual relationship
with TASER. The Former Chief’s “Employee Notification of Retirement” HR form lists January
1, 2014 as the retirement date. According to the City’s Conflict of Interest Ordinance, § 3-3-7,
(A) ROA 1994, from January 1, 2014, through January 1, 2015, the Former Chief could not
represent TASER.
§ 3-3-7 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; FORMER EMPLOYEES.
(A) A former employee shall not within one year after the date of termination from
employment represent any person or business in connection with a matter in which the
former employee has performed an official act, unless the Chief Administrative Officer
consents to such representation. No person or business with which a former employee is
associated may knowingly undertake or continue a private representation in such a matter
unless:
(1) The disqualified former employee is screened from participation in the matter and is
apportioned no part of the compensation therefrom; and
(2) Written notice is promptly given to the Chief Administrative Officer.
As the chief decision maker for APD, the Former Chief’s role was to provide authority,
guidance, resources, and maintain project priority, which would include directing and
authorizing APD staff on the testing and procurement of TASER’s Axon-Flex cameras and
Evidence.com. A history of the implementation of Axon-Flex cameras at APD includes the
statement: “November 19, 2012 the Chief ask for a roadmap to implement TASER Axon Flex by
February 15, 2013.” In addition, APD’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2013 through 2017 was
created between July and December 2012, and already contained an objective to “Expand
TASER/Evidence.com services.”
Information received from TASER states that between January 1, 2014 and July 30, 2014, the
Former Chief participated in nine events on behalf of TASER in which he was a paid contractor.
In these presentations, the Former Chief promoted TASER products by talking about APD’s
experiences.

Office of Inspector General

Page 11

 INFORMATION PROVIDED BY TASER

The OIG reviewed the Former Chief’s HR records and APD personnel files to determine if any
written consent was approved by the CAO allowing the Former Chief to be a paid contractor for
Taser. No record of a written consent was found in HR records nor in APD personnel files.
The OIG asked the CAO if he gave consent to the Former Chief to contract with TASER during
his first year of retirement. The CAO replied, “no consent was given to the Chief.”
The Former Chief did not give written notice to the CAO regarding his contractual relationship
with TASER, which is a probable violation of the City’s Conflict of Interest Ordinance. The
City’s Conflict of Interest Ordinance was not followed and the Former Chief’s contract with
TASER is a probable violation of § 3-3-13, which can be enforced by§ 1-1-99 ROA 1994, as
stated below.
§ 3-3-13 VIOLATION BY FORMER EMPLOYEE.
Violation of any of the provisions of this article by a former employee is a misdemeanor,
and, upon conviction the former employee shall be subject to the penalty set forth in § 1-199.
§ 1-1-99 GENERAL PENALTY.
Any person who violates any provision of this code for which another penalty is not
specifically provided shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine not exceeding $500 or by
imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or both unless a different specific penalty is
provided. Each separate violation shall constitute a separate offense and, upon conviction,
each day of violation shall constitute a separate offense.
When the OIG contacted the Former Chief for an interview by email, the Former Chief declined
to be interviewed. The Former Chief’s attorney stated, “Until that investigation [by the New
Mexico Attorney General’s Office] is completed, I have directed [the Former Chief] to decline
Office of Inspector General

Page 12

 addressing all inquiries about the Taser [sic] contract. My advice includes any questions which
the Office of Inspector General and Office of Internal Audit seek to ask.”
Recommendations
 The CAO should direct HR to revise retirement documents to include wording
regarding the prohibition against representing any person or business in connection
with a matter in which a former employee performed an official act, unless the
Chief Administrative Officer consents to such representation.
 The City should consider if legal action should be taken against the Former Chief as
described in § 3-3-13 VIOLATION BY FORMER EMPLOYEE and enforceable by
§ 1-1-99 GENERAL PENALTY.
3.

APD EMPLOYEES DID NOT ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY’S CONFLICT OF
INTEREST REGULATIONS.
During the course of the investigation, the OIG identified numerous APD employees with direct
involvement with APD’s Axon-Flex camera testing or procurement that accepted various forms
of gratuities from TASER. A breakdown of the gratuities accepted includes airfare/travel,
food/beverage, out of state training and entertainment.
Administrative Instruction No. 3-12 states:
3. GENERAL
B. It is prohibited to accept at a suppliers expense travel, accommodations, meals and all
other gratuities.
C. Travel with a supplier is prohibited unless such travel is approved in advance by the
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). All requests for travel with a supplier will be
submitted on a travel request form and will include the purpose of the trip, name of the
firm, individuals travelling, and the benefit of the trip to the City and Department.
APD Employees Acceptance of Meals
From approximately August 2012 through September 2013, during APD’s testing,
implementation and contract completion, a TASER Executive would visit APD at least two times
per month. Of the two times per month that the TASER Executive was in Albuquerque, he would
routinely purchase lunch for two APD Officers. TASER stated the average cost of the lunches
was $20 - $25.
Albuquerque Dinner (Fine Dining Restaurant)
On October 15, 2013, TASER’s Executive sent an email to two APD employees with an
invitation for dinner at fine dining restaurant. The email extended the invitation to “wives,
family or whoever you want to bring.”
Office of Inspector General

Page 13

 On October 30, 2013, APD staff and guests attended dinner with TASER representatives. From
information received from TASER, the cost of the dinner was $1,349. According to information
received, two officers, two evidence technicians and one APD contracted employee attended the
dinner with TASER representatives. APD employees’ spouses and guests may have also
attended.
Prohibited Travel
On October 10, 2012, TASER’s Executive sent an email to an APD employee with an invitation
for training on evidence.com. The email stated:
TASER International is offering an ALL-EXPENSE PAID training certification program on
Digital Evidence Management for selected officers and IT professionals. We will fly selected
personnel to TASER International headquarters in Scottsdale, Arizona and provide hotel and
entertainment along with training on topics such as…
Two APD employees attended the All-Expense paid training on January 10, 2013 in Scottsdale,
Arizona. TASER was asked what the total value of this event was per person. TASER
estimated that the value was $700 per person.
This free training for a TASER application, Evidence.com, was being offered to APD five
months prior to the initial purchase of 75 Axon-Flex cameras. It is the OIG’s opinion that this
could be viewed as an unfair advantage for a vendor.
Donation Solicitation
APD employees solicited sponsorship donations from TASER for APD’s Ski Team. Emails and
communication indicate that TASER’s Executive donated $1,000 and TASER donated $500 to
APD’s Ski Team.
APD employees stated various reasons for accepting gratuities from TASER. They included:


Received directive to attend TASER events,



Thought TASER paid training was part of contract,



Do not believe a gratuity was accepted.
Recommendations
 APD should ensure all Departmental staff are informed of the City’s conflict of
interest regulations, that: Prohibit the acceptance of any gift (meal, food/beverage,
travel/airfare), reward, favor or all other gratuities from any vendor, contractor,
individual or firm doing business or planning to do business with the City.
 The CAO should direct DFAS-Purchasing to create and distribute a vendor code of
conduct to communicate City policies that apply to vendors, including the

Office of Inspector General

Page 14

 prohibition against purchasing meals or other gratuities that would benefit City
employees.
4.

APD’S INITIAL PURCHASE OF 75 AXON FLEX CAMERAS AND ASSOCIATED
SERVICES FROM TASER BYPASSED THE CITY’S COMPETIVE PROCUREMENT
PROCESS.
APD’s initial purchase on March 27, 2013 for 75 Axon-Flex cameras and associated services
from TASER totaling $106,855 circumvented the competitive procurement process. The
purchase was made by using a Contract Release Order (“CRO”) against a Sole-Source contract
that only included TASER electroshock weapons, accessories and repair.
The following events in the initial purchase were not in line with the City’s competitive
procurement process:


The Sole Source contract used for the initial purchase was for TASER electroshock
weapons and could not be used to create a CRO for the 75 Axon-Flex cameras;



The initial purchase of 75 Axon-Flex cameras bypassed purchasing regulations and
approvals that should have been followed in the City’s competitive procurement process;



The APD Lieutenant who authorized the payment for the initial purchase did not have the
authority to approve the purchase;



The initial purchase was used as the basis for justifying the non-competitive five year,
$1.9 million OEP purchase of Axon-Flex cameras and Evidence.com on September 30,
2013.

The OIG asked the Chief Procurement Officer several questions regarding the purchases, rules
and regulations that should have been followed. Below are some key points the Chief
Procurement Officer addressed:







We have thoroughly reviewed file number SSP2011-037-P and have determined that the
Senior Buyer assigned to APD in extending the contract term of the Procurement
Contract did not follow the procedures for adding ancillary items to a contract, including
the requirement that the Chief Procurement Officer be notified of and approve the
addition.
Taser could not and cannot add pricing schedules or product without following City
procedures. Vendors/Suppliers do not have the ability or discretion to change the nature
of the terms of a contract unilaterally.
The Axon Flex Cameras were not part of the catalog despite the fact that the APD Senior
Buyer inappropriately attached the 2013 Price List to the file.
To add additional items, the Purchasing process requires an end user Department to
submit a Purchase Order Adjustment to “adjust” or amend the contract. However,
Purchasing will authorize only items deemed ancillary to the original purchase.

Office of Inspector General

Page 15

 

There were other more appropriate methodologies such as the Other Exempt Purchase,
GSA or other Government Contracts.

The Chief Procurement Officer stated the APD’s initial purchase of 75 Axon-Flex cameras was
improperly purchased from a Sole Source contract that did not include Axon-Flex cameras or
services. The initial contract between APD and TASER was for electroshock devices,
accessories and repairs.
In interviewing APD’s Fiscal Manager and APD’s Senior Buyer, both stated that the
procurement process for the 75 Axon-Flex cameras was done correctly. But in reviewing emails
from APD’s Fiscal Manager and Senor buyer, it appears that the Fiscal Manager and Senior
Buyer discovered a way of getting around the procurement process to purposely avoid the
DFAS- Purchasing Department. The following are excerpts from email related to the initial
purchase.
APD Fiscal Manager:


The City has a loophole, in that there are no internal controls for verifying that product
purchased from an existing contract instead of a resolution have gone through TRC (The
City’s Technical Review Committee).



Get me a quote and I can get you a CRO.



In theory, it should probably still go through TRC before we order the product since it is
going through our system, but we should be able to bypass the other DFAS processes this
time.

Senior Buyer:
APD’s Senior Buyer email to APD’s Fiscal Manager


I was just looking for a price list so I could update the existing contract. As long as this is
covered on the Law Enforcement Pricing Schedule, you can just do a CRO (when, if
there’s a purchase).



DFAS-Purchasing staff “told me something I didn’t know; if TRC approval is required
for a purchase, you can’t do a CRO, it must be sent to Purchasing for a PO.”

APD is unique, from many other departments, in that it has a Senior Buyer embedded within the
department. In theory, the Senior Buyer is supposed to perform the oversight functions of a
DFAS-Purchasing Senior Buyer. The Senior Buyer performed under an unclear management
structure, reporting to both APD’s Fiscal Manager and Purchasing’s Chief Procurement Officer.
APD’s Senior Buyer resigned on November 29, 2014.
The City does have a procurement method for purchasing goods and services for a reasonable
trial period. However, after the test phase is complete, the subsequent purchase must comply
Office of Inspector General

Page 16

 with the City’s procurement code and be competitively bid if other vendors produce similar
products. This did not happen with the initial 75 Axon-Flex camera purchase.
City Purchasing Rules and Regulations, Chapter 22, Section 2.1 states:
Public employees must discharge their duties impartially so as to assure fair competitive
access to governmental procurement by responsible contractors. Moreover, they should
conduct themselves in such a manner as to foster public confidence in the integrity of the
City procurement organization.
Recommendations
 The CAO should direct HR in revising the reporting structure of embedded Senior
Buyers in a department to have them report exclusively to the Chief Procurement
Officer.
 The CAO should consider Ethics training for all City employees, especially those
involved in the procurement process, to include personnel involved in pilot
programs.
 APD should insure that only individuals with the proper signature authority
approve APD payments.
 APD should determine if the actions taken by their employees regarding the
TASER procurement warrant disciplinary action.
5.

THE CITY OVERPAID FOR EVIDENCE.COM USAGE AND STORAGE FEES.
The initial CRO purchase agreement on March 27, 2013, for 75 Axon-Flex cameras included one
year of Evidence.com usage and 6,000 Gigabytes of storage (Evidence.com) at no charge. The
ensuing “Other Exempt Purchase” contract for 525 Axon-Flex cameras also included charges for
Evidence.com for the same time period for the 75 Axon-Flex cameras. Evidence.com fees
should have been prorated to reflect the dates of the agreements overlapping.
According to calculations, TASER overcharged the City $25,243 for Evidence.com fees that
should have been prorated to reflect the overlapping period between August 15, 2013 through
March 27, 2014 illustrated below.
March
2013

Evidence.com at no charge

August
2013

Office of Inspector General

March
2014

Evidence.com Paid Subscription

August
2014

Page 17

 OVERCHARGE FOR OVERLAPPING EVIDENCE.COM SERVICES

Quantity
75
6000

TASER Invoice: SI1317648
75 Axon-Flex cameras
3/27/2013 through 3/27/2014
Item Number
Description
85018
1 Year Evidence .Com Usage
85035
Evidence.Com Storage
TOTAL:

Net Total
$0
$0
$0

TASER 5 Year Quotation: Q-02878-3
Contract Start Date: 8/15/2013
Payment due on August 15 of each year until 2017
525 Addition Axon-Flex camera purchase to Include yearly fees for Evidence.com
for 75 Axon-Flex cameras for TASER Invoice: SI1317648
Quantity
Item Number
Description
Net Total
75
85121
Annual Evidence.Com: Year 1
$31,950
6000
85035
Evidence.Com Storage
$9,000
TOTAL:
$40,950
Prorated charge Evidence.Com from 3/27/2014 - 8/15/2014 (140 Days)

$15,707

Overcharged for Evidence.Com from 8/15/2013 - 3/27/2014 (265 Days)

$25,243

Total Charge Evidence.Com from 8/15/2013 through 8/15/2014

$40,950

Recommendations
 APD should request a refund of $25,243 from TASER.

Office of Inspector General

Page 18

 Conclusion
The TASER Axon-Flex camera may or may not have been the best camera for APD at the time
of the procurement. Nevertheless, the way in which the cameras were procured, lack of
documentation and conflicts of interest gives this procurement an appearance of impropriety.
Did the Former Chief use his influence to assist TASER in its dealing with the City? Evidence
shows that the Former Chief was a key supporter in the TASER procurement. Items below
highlight key support points2:
 As APD’s Chief, the Former Chief was the chief decision maker for the City’s law
enforcement agency.
 According to APD personnel, the Former Chief wanted to be on top of the “next big thing
in law enforcement.
 On November 19, 2012, the Former Chief asked for a roadmap to implement TASER
Axon Flex by February 15, 2013.
 The evidence shows that TASER was given a competitive advantage over other vendors.
 An email from the Former Chief to a TASER Executive: “I will however, still have the
ear of the Mayor and CAO on department issues (at least through the election), so if you
run into any problems give me a shout.”
 An email from the Former Chief to a TASER Executive: “As for the TRC meeting next
week, yes everything has been greased so it should go without any issues.”
 On September 17, 2013, ten days into the Former Chief’s early retirement, TASER
offered the Former Chief a consult for fee contract.
2

It should be pointed out that TASER may have gained an unfair advantage in what should have been a competitive
procurement process. From emails and documentation reviewed, it appears that TASER Axon-Flex cameras were
the preferred cameras from the beginning. It appears the testing of other vendors cameras was minimal compared to
that of the TASER Axon-Flex camera. APD’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2013 through 2017 was created
between July – December 2012 and already contained an objective to “Expand TASER/Evidence.com services.”
According to APD staff, the Department tested several cameras from vendors to include VieVue, GoPro, Scorpion
and Wolfcom, but determined that TASER Axon-Flex cameras were the best fit for APD. However, when the OIG
asked how the different cameras were evaluated and if there was supporting documentation, APD could supply only
minimal documentation. APD staff stated that communication regarding the evaluation of the cameras was “mostly
verbal.”
On October 9, 2012, TASER was also given information not readily available to other vendors that included: two
“Department Special Orders” and all Standard Operating Procedures (“SOP”) regarding use of digital recorders that
APD was working on. Information provided to TASER allowed them to capture insight on the direction APD was
going regarding the implementation of body-worn cameras.
Office of Inspector General

Page 19

 REVIEWED BY:

______________________________
Acting IG

_________________________________
IG Investigator

APPROVED:

APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION WITH
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT:

______________________________
Peter J. Pacheco, CFE, CIGI
Acting IG, Office of Inspector General

___________________________________
Chairperson, Accountability in Government
Government Oversight

Office of Inspector General

Page 20

 APPENDIX

The following conflict of interest regulations also apply to APD and City personnel and vendors
are encouraged to cooperate with such regulations.








City Charter – Article XII Code of Ethics
APD Standard Operating Procedure
City Administrative Instruction No. 3-12 (September 24, 1997)
City Ordinance – § 3-3-1, et, seq., ROA 1994: Conflict of Interest Ordinance
City Ordinance – § 5-5-1, et, seq., ROA 1994: Public Purchases Ordinance
Personnel Rules and Regulations – Section 301 Code of Conduct
DFAS Purchasing – Vendor Handbook

Glossary of terms
Contract Release Order (“CRO”)
Purchase mechanism that allows user Departments to purchase specific products and
services from authorized contracts.
Other Exempt Purchase (“OEP”)
Procurement that is exempt from the City’s competitive procurement regulations.
Evidence.com
Division of TASER that provides secure digital evidence management for TASER
products.

Office of Inspector General

Page 21

 City of Albuquerque
Richard J. Berry, Mayor

Interoffice Memorandum

April 24, 2015

To:

Peter J. Pacheco, Acting IG, Office of the Inspector General

From:

Robert J. Perry, Chief Administrative Officer

Subject:

Investigation Report No. 14-207
Taser International Body Worn Camera Procurements

The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Department of Finance and Administrative ServicesCity Purchasing Division (DFAS), City Attorney and Human Resources Department (HR) and
Albuquerque Police Department (APD) has jointly reviewed the above referenced audit, findings
and recommendations. They are providing their responses, as follows.
Finding No. 1
The Former Police Chief accepted meals and gratuities while still employed.
Recommendations:
The CAO Should:
 Direct HRD to revise retirement documents to include information explaining the
prohibition against representing any person or business in connection with a
matter in which a former employee performed an official act, unless the CAO
consents in writing to such representation.
Response from CAO, HR, City Attorney
Disagree:
This finding is based upon an ambiguous interpretation of the term “Early Retirement”.
The City of Albuquerque offers a “benefit” program known as Early Retirement. This
benefit is found in the City’s Personnel Rules and Regulations § 403.10; BENEFITS,
EARLY RETIREMENT “ Immediately prior to retirement from active service with the
City of Albuquerque an employee may take leave with pay equivalent to the amount of
sick and vacation leave the City has accumulated….
However, in accordance with the City’s Personnel Rules and Regulations § 807;
CLEARANCE PROCESSING; “On the last day of work employees must process out
of City employment by completing and submitting a Clearance Form to the appropriate
offices as instructed on the form. During this process the employee must return all pagers,
Office of Inspector General

Page 22

 cellular phones, hand held computers, portable computers, equipment, keys supplies, card
keys and all other City issued equipment…”(emphasis added)
The practical issue these conflicting authorities create is that retiring employees believe
that early retirement means just that…”Retirement”. In the instant case, the former police
chief had no access to City facilities, computers, vehicles, or equipment. He had no
authority to issue orders, make management, budget, or personnel decisions. No law
enforcement powers were vested in him as his law enforcement commission authority
was revoked by operation of law. In actuality the Chief like any employee is entirely
relieved of any responsibility, duty, or assignment. Moreover, a new Chief (Acting) was
immediately named and to this extent what significance or factual basis is the finding that
the old Chief retained the title predicated upon is unknown.
CAO will direct Human Resources Department to explicitly clarify the meaning of the
term “Early Retirement” with specific definitions within the City’s HR rules and
regulation policy manual. Under the these provisions, it should be set forth that an
individual who is on early retirement status, whom no longer attends work, no longer can
make management or work decisions, no longer has access to City offices, vehicles,
computers, or equipment, and is merely selling back accrued leave balances is not an
employee of the City of Albuquerque and his/her separation date is when the
aforementioned authority, rights, and privileges were terminated.
Estimated Completion Date
June 30, 2015.
Finding No. 2
The former Chief violated city ordinance by representing Taser after his retirement date.
Response: Disagree with legal interpretation of ordinance and agree to alleged fact.
Although this prohibition would prohibit the chief from representing Taser in connection
with City business after he retired. He is not prohibited from working for Taser, or other
City vendors on matters unrelated to City business.
The Chief did not represent a business “in connection with a matter in which the former
employee has performed an official act”. The Chief did not try to sell Taser products to
the City of Albuquerque. His work seems to be directed at other Departments.

Finding No.3
APD Employees did not act in accordance with City’s conflict of interest regulations.
Recommendations:
APD Should:
 Ensure all Departmental staff is informed of the City’s conflict of interest
regulations, prohibiting the acceptance of gifts, etc.
.
The CAO Should:
Office of Inspector General

Page 23

 




Consider issuing a stand- alone Code of Conduct document to every City
employee emphasizing important policies, including unallowable activities such
as acceptance of meals and gifts from vendors.
Create a Citywide conflict of interest reporting form. The form should include all
applicable citations from State and City regulations and give clear and
understandable examples of each regulation. The form should provide space for
reporting potential conflicts and be acknowledged and signed by all City
personnel, and retained in each employee’s HRD personnel file on an annual
basis.
In part, the CAO should work with DFAS Purchasing to create and distribute a
vendor code of conduct to communicate City policies that apply to vendors,
including prohibition against purchasing meals or other items for the benefit of
the City.

Response from CAO, APD, HR, City Attorney:
Agree with findings but disagree with recommendations: Some of the recommendations
create an unnecessary and significant administrative burden upon whereas we already
have conflict of interest/ethics policies in place and all new employees receive this
information at the mandatory orientation meeting. The recommendation concerning the
conflict of interest form will be explored more in depth by DFAS, HR, and City Attorney
to evaluate the feasibility of such a corrective action
Although the employee(s) conduct and discretion in these matters was not in
accordance with conflict of interest regulations it is also important to consider the
responsibility of the vendor. Gratuities are prohibited within the vendor conduct and
administrative instruction. To this extent, City legal and Central Purchasing will further
explore the vendors conduct, practices, and compliance with the City’s purchasing
ordinance(s), regulations, and other prohibiting authority.
DFAS Purchasing will be instructed to update its Vendor Handbook to include the
information set forth above and will post the updated Vendor Handbook on the City’s
external website.
Estimated Completion Date
No later than July 30, 2015.
Finding No. 4
APD’s initial purchase of 75 Axon flex cameras and associated series from Taser Bypassed the
City’s competitive process
Recommendations:
The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Should:
 Direct the Human Resources Department (HRD) to revise the reporting structure
for any senior buyers currently embedded in departments and have them report
exclusively to the Chief Procurement Officer. Also, if other internal service
personnel are required to spend the majority of their time in user departments,
Office of Inspector General

Page 24

 they should be direct reports to the Director of the internal service department, not
the user department.
Response from CAO:
The CAO agrees with this finding, is disappointed in the process that was utilized to
procure the On-Body camera/data storage system and pledges support to insure that
future procurements are in compliance with procurement rules. The CAO is directing the
Department of Finance Administrative Services (DFAS) to prepare an Administrative
Instruction for review by all necessary parties that insures that embedded buyers are
supervised and accountable to the Purchasing Department and Chief Procurement Officer
under the DFAS as well as City legal and not the user Department. The Administrative
Instruction will be presented to the Administration for approval and adoption.
In addition, the reforms listed below directed to DFAS-Purchasing and APD have and/or
are being implemented at the direction and in collaboration with oversight of the CAO.

Estimated Completion Date:
No later than June 30, 2015.

APD Should:
 Inform Administrative Staff that as a condition of employment, employees are
required to comply with all relevant laws, statutes, ordinances, and regulations
and any violations will be grounds for disciplinary action including, but not
limited to termination, demotion, suspension or reprimand.
 Review the effectiveness of internal controls for payment authorization and
ensure only individual(s) with proper signature authority approve APD payments.
 Review documentation associated with APD’s Pilot Purchase to determine if the
staff member’s actions warrant disciplinary action.
Response from APD, DFAS and CAO
Agree.
a). While this is not a recommendation for APD by Internal Audit, it is an action that the
CAO, DFAS Purchasing and APD is taking to ensure effective internal controls both at
APD and City-wide. As part of the City’s Enterprise Resource Program (ERP) project,
an assessment of DFAS Purchasing’s PeopleSoft purchasing software modules was
conducted in 2014.
As a result, DFAS Purchasing is now engaged in an implementation project of its
PeopleSoft supply chain software modules to create efficiencies, reduce processing time,
enhance security and revise its procurement business practices. This project has many far
reaching enhancements on the City’s purchasing process to include eliminating any
“loopholes” and establish internal controls for goods/services purchased utilizing the
procurement contract, contract release order methodology. These system improvements
will include workflow that will insure integrity of the chain of command for necessary
Office of Inspector General

Page 25

 approvals and include specific commodity codes that will prevent future misuse of
purchase contracts.
b). APD, in collaboration with DFAS Purchasing, will design and provide training to
administrative staff members regarding the appropriate purchasing procedures with
respect to compliance with relevant laws, statutes, etc. Each APD employee who is
responsible for any purchases over $10,000.00 will be required to sign an
acknowledgement of recognition of the above referenced Administrative Instruction that
will be placed in the employees personnel file.
c). APD will review the signature authority currently granted to each administrative staff
member and make the necessary adjustments to ensure effective controls for payment
authorization and determining proper signature authority approval for APD payments.
APD has reorganized the fiscal management of their budget program to include
additional supervision, reporting, and approval and accountability processes.

d). The Senior buyer referred to in the audit findings is no longer employed with the City
of Albuquerque. APD will consult with HRD regarding whether any disciplinary action
is warranted as to staff members’ actions in the APD Pilot Purchase.

Estimated Completion Date:
a). July 2016

Finding No. 5
The City overpaid for evidence.com usage and storage fees.
Recommendations:
APD Should:
Request a refund or credit for $25,243 from Taser. The credit can be applied to Taser’s
next annual renewal invoice, which is due August 2015.

Response from APD:
Agree. APD will work with City Legal to reconcile the overcharge and pursue
reimbursement.
Estimated Completion Date:
July 30, 2015 (subject to progress).

Office of Inspector General

Page 26

 City of Albuquerque
Accountability in Government
Oversight Committee

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT
DATE:

June 9, 2015

TO:

Peter Pacheco, Acting Inspector General

FROM:

Accountability in Government Oversight Committee

RE:

Special Investigation Report, Albuquerque Police Department,
Body-Worn Camera Procurement, Case No. 14-207 (the “Report”)

On June 9, 2015, the Accountability in Government Oversight Committee (the
“Committee”) received your final Report, which accepted some of the suggestions made
by the Committee, and rejected others. The Committee recognizes the Inspector
General’s right to accept or reject such suggestions. In voting to approve the Report, the
Committee finds by a majority vote that the investigation is questionable pursuant to
Section 2-10-5(L) Revised Ordinances of Albuquerque (“ROA”). The Committee hereby
issues this cautionary statement to articulate its concerns.
The Committee supports most of the investigation and findings of the Acting Inspector
General. Therefore, the Committee has approved the Report, subject to this cautionary
statement. However, this statement is necessary to caution that, in the Committee’s
opinion, the Report overstates certain conclusions, which are not supported by the
evidence in the investigation. The Acting Inspector General concludes that certain
actions are a “probable” violation certain City rules or ordinances. The Committee
believes that “potential” or “possible” would be more consistent with the facts developed
by the Acting Inspector General in his report.
With respect to Finding 1, the Committee received conflicting information about the
status of employees on early retirement. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that
an employee on early retirement is subject to the same personnel rules as other
employees. The Committee agrees that the violations are possible, but not probable.
With respect to Finding 2, the Report indicates that the former Chief participated in the
Taser procurement. The Report also indicates that the Chief, within one year of
employment of the City of Albuquerque, acted as a contractor to Taser, representing the
company to various police departments, but not to the Albuquerque Police Department.
Office of Inspector General

Page 27

 The cited ordinance only forbids representation “in connection with a matter in which the
former employee has performed an official act.” Section 3-3-7 ROA. The Report does
not establish that the former Chief’s contract work with Taser was representation with
respect to the Taser procurement in which he may have taken an official act. The actions
may have potentially violated this ordinance, but the evidence presented by the Acting
Inspector General does not support a conclusion that the violation is probable.

Office of Inspector General

Page 28