The director of the Legislative Audit Council told a Senate committee on Thursday that he didn't see any criminal violations in the recent review of the state Department of Transportation. Maybe not, but senators and the attorney general should keep an open mind on the subject, since the audit listed several instances in which state and federal laws apparently were broken.

For example, the agency's audit program for preconstruction contracts is, in the LAC's words, "inadequate, ineffective and not in compliance with federal law." Additionally, DOT failed to comply with federal law in verifying overhead rates for contractors, an expense that largely determines what the state pays, according to the LAC. There was no evidence of negotiations for consultant services, as required by federal law and state regulation, the audit found.

The audit council also reported that the DOT violated the state procurement code in hiring a business consultant without a competitive process. It violated state law by using private checking accounts to cover conference expenses and in its long-term use of temporary employees, according to the LAC. (Two "temporary" DOT workers are reported to have been on the job for six years.) The agency solicited contributions from contractors to pay for conference activities, which the LAC described as a "conflict of interest."

Other problems cited in the LAC audit appear so egregious and without sufficient explanation by the DOT that they cry out for further review. Why, for example, would the DOT hire consultants who, by the agency's own ranking system, were far down the list of desirable candidates? In half of preconstruction contracts the DOT chose firms that didn't score highest by the agency's own criteria.

The LAC was particularly troubled by one consulting contract, citing problems with "the terms and scope of services ... and the billings and payments for services," as well as potential favoritism in the hiring process. As part of its contract, the firm provided temporary workers, many of whom were former DOT employees, at double the agency's normal expense.

And there haven't been adequate explanations about why the cash-strapped agency paid as fees on a major contract 4.5 percent of the contract's cost, instead of the 2 percent initially suggested by company officials. That adjustment alone cost the state $32 million, according to the LAC.

The questionable practices that were aired last week in Senate hearings are so numerous and so serious - despite the DOT's assertions to the contrary - that further investigation is warranted. An appropriate forum may be the statewide grand jury, which was established, in part, to deal with official improprieties. If the legislative committee doesn't ask the attorney general's office to assist in its review, the state's chief legal officer should exercise his initiative.