Commission on Civil Rights: Commissioners' Travel Activities (Letter
Report, 08/08/94, GAO/GGD-94-130).
GAO was asked to investigate several questions relating to travel of
commissioners of the Commission on Civil Rights, including a
determination of whether timely travel vouchers had been filed for the
period of fiscal year 1992 through February, 1994. As of March 31,
1994, 6 of the 10 commissioners who were provided airline and train
tickets during this period had filed all required vouchers. One
commissioner had not filed 57 vouchers, while 2 other commissioners each
had not filed 1 voucher and the Commission was reviewing the need for a
voucher for another trip which had been cancelled. The commissioners'
failure to submit travel vouchers in a timely manner had caused the
Commission to increase budgetary adjustments at the end of fiscal years
and these adjustments required the Commission to record additional
obligations to cover future payment of outstanding travel vouchers.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-94-130
TITLE: Commission on Civil Rights: Commissioners' Travel Activities
DATE: 08/08/94
SUBJECT: Accounting procedures
Civil rights
Accountability
Travel allowances
Refunds to government
Credit sales
Transportation expense claims
Travel costs
Financial management
Volunteer services
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional
Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives
August 1994
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS -
COMMISSIONERS' TRAVEL ACTIVITIES
GAO/GGD-94-130
Travel Activities
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
GSA - General Services Administration
NFC - National Finance Center
OMB - Office of Management and Budget
USDA - United States Department of Agriculture
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-256976
August 8, 1994
The Honorable Don Edwards
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil
and Constitutional Rights
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This report is in response to your request that we determine, for the
period from fiscal year 1992 through February 1994, whether (1)
Commission on Civil Rights' Commissioners had filed timely travel
vouchers and if not, whether there were any adverse effects to the
government; (2) the Commission verified that Commissioners' use of
government contractor-issued charge cards was for official travel
purposes; and (3) the statutory limitation on Commissioners' billable
workdays and the statutory prohibition against the Commission
accepting voluntary services effectively placed a limit on
Commissioners' travel.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
As of March 31, 1994, 6 of the 10 Commissioners who were provided
airline and train tickets during fiscal year 1992 to February 1994
had filed all required vouchers.\1 In total, 139 vouchers for 199
trips were filed. One Commissioner had not filed 57 vouchers, while
2 other Commissioners each had not filed 1 voucher. The Commission
was reviewing the need for a voucher for another scheduled trip,
which had been cancelled. Of the 139 vouchers that had been filed,
we could not determine the timeliness of 23 because they did not
contain the dates needed to make this determination. However, of the
116 vouchers for which we could make the determination, 81 were filed
within 30 days after the trip as required by federal and agency
travel regulations. The remaining 35 vouchers were filed from 33 to
182 days after the trip had been completed.
Commissioners' failure to submit travel vouchers in a timely manner
has caused the Commission to increase budgetary adjustments at the
end of fiscal years. The adjustments required the Commission to
record additional obligations to cover future payment of outstanding
travel vouchers. The failure to file vouchers could also lead to
violations of the Antideficiency Act and the bona fide needs rule.
Under this rule, fiscal year appropriations may be obligated only to
meet the legitimate bona fide needs of the fiscal year for which the
appropriation was made. Thus, temporary duty travel expenses must be
charged to the appropriation for the fiscal year in which the travel
occurred. If an agency lacks sufficient funds to cover outstanding
travel vouchers for travel that occurs during a fiscal year, the
agency would violate the Antideficiency Act. Further, payment of
these vouchers from appropriations for later years would violate the
bona fide needs rule. It will not be possible for us to determine if
the Commission has violated the bona fide needs rule or the
Antideficiency Act until the outstanding vouchers are filed and paid.
In its comments on a draft of this report on July 8, 1994, the
Commission said it had received and approved some of the outstanding
travel vouchers, and the results of its review indicated that neither
the Antideficiency Act nor the bona fide needs rule will be violated
by the final processing of these vouchers. Because all of the
outstanding vouchers had not been filed and those that had been filed
had not been completely processed, we could not verify that the
Commission had sufficient funds for the appropriate fiscal year to
cover these vouchers.
Outstanding travel vouchers can also result in the loss of funds in
the form of reimbursements to the Commission. Fifteen of the 59
Commission-paid transportation tickets, for which vouchers had not
been filed, valued at about $6,800 appeared to be either (1)
duplicate tickets issued for the same trip or (2) partially used
tickets. While the Commission may be able to obtain refunds for
these tickets, the longer vouchers and unused tickets are
outstanding, the greater the risk that the Commission will not be
reimbursed. According to an airline industry official we spoke to,
tickets are valid for 1 year; after that time, individual airlines
have the discretion whether to refund unused tickets. As of March
1994, 12 of the 15 tickets had been issued 12 months earlier. If the
Commission is unable to obtain refunds for the 15 tickets, the
Commissioner to whom the tickets were issued could be liable for the
cost.
The Commission had not verified that employee use of the government
contractor-issued charge cards was limited to official travel
purposes. In April 1993, the Commission told its staff that it would
review future monthly reports available from the government
contractor that list transactions for individual cardholders.
In our opinion, the appropriations limitation on Commissioners'
billable workdays and the statutory prohibition against the
Commission accepting volunteer services do not limit the amount of
travel reimbursement Commissioners can receive. As long as a
Commissioner is performing authorized Commission business, he or she
is entitled to travel reimbursement. Also, the billable workday
limitation does not limit the number of days the Commissioners can
work in a year, only the number of days for which they can be paid.
Further, we believe that the statutory prohibition against acceptance
of volunteer services does not apply to the Commissioners.
--------------------
\1 Eight Commissioners are appointed to determine the policy
direction for the Commission. During the period of our review, 11
different individuals served as Commissioners. One of the 11
Commissioners did not receive travel tickets.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The Commission, established in 1957, is a fact-finding federal agency
required to report on civil rights protection and issues. Eight
Commissioners, four appointed by the president and four appointed by
Congress, are to determine the policy direction for the agency. A
staff director for the Commission is responsible for the
administration of the Commission's day-to-day operations. The
Commission's current authority expires at the end of fiscal year
1994.
The Commission, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National
Finance Center (NFC), and Omega World Travel performed some elements
of the Commission's travel function during the period covered in our
audit. In 1987, the Commission entered into an agreement with USDA
whereby NFC would provide financial management services for
payroll/personnel; administrative payments, including those for
travel; billing and collection; property management information; and
central accounting services.
Almost all federal agencies now use contractors to make their travel
arrangements. Since these contractors receive commissions from
airlines and other service providers, there is no direct cost to the
government for their services. Omega World Travel is the
Commission's contractor and is responsible for obtaining Commission
transportation tickets. Omega bills American Express for the
tickets. American Express is under contract with the General
Services Administration (GSA) to provide charge cards to government
employees for official travel use.\2 The Commission, through NFC,
subsequently reimburses American Express directly for the tickets,
regardless of whether travelers have filed travel vouchers for the
tickets.
Each fiscal year, Commissioners are issued blanket travel
authorizations for travel within the continental limits of the United
States.\3 The Commission's Staff Director approves the blanket
authorizations, and the Commission Budget and Finance Division
obligates the estimated annual travel funds for the fiscal year.
During fiscal year 1993, Commission travel costs for all staff
represented $360,000 of the Commission's $7.7 million budget.
According to the Commission, $30,964 of the $360,000 in travel costs
was for Commissioners' travel.
Commissioners used their blanket authorizations to obtain tickets
from Omega. For individual trips, Omega either sent the tickets to
the Commissioners or arranged for pickup at the airport.
Commissioners are to use government contractor-issued charge cards to
pay for other travel expenses, such as lodging, and obtain
reimbursement from the Commission for these costs by submitting
travel vouchers.
The Commission's Staff Director approves individual Commissioners'
travel vouchers, and the Budget and Finance Division Chief and a
Division staff member audit the vouchers. Following this audit,
Commission staff electronically transmit voucher information to NFC,
where it is subject to further audit. NFC subsequently pays the
voucher.
--------------------
\2 GSA's contract with American Express became effective in fiscal
year 1994. During fiscal years 1992 and 1993, Diners Club was the
government contractor that issued charge cards to federal employees.
\3 A Commissioner's usual place of residence is his or her official
duty station. Under 42 U.S.C. 1975b, Commissioners performing work
for the Commission are entitled to reimbursement for expenses of
travel away from their usual places of residence.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
To respond to your request, we reviewed the Federal Travel
Regulations and the Commission's travel regulations. We also
reviewed Commissioners' travel authorizations and voucher files from
fiscal year 1992 to February 1994. We interviewed the Commissioner
with the most outstanding vouchers and officials and staff in the
Commission's Office of Management and the Division of Budget and
Finance.
To determine whether Commissioners had filed travel vouchers, we
matched the Commission's payment records for transportation tickets
with Commissioners' voucher files. From Omega, we also obtained a
listing of returned transportation tickets for fiscal years 1992 and
1993 in order to determine whether planned travel had been
subsequently cancelled--eliminating the need for a travel voucher.
We determined the timeliness of filed travel vouchers by calculating
the number of days between the date travel ended and the date the
Commission's Budget and Finance Division received the vouchers. We
were unable to make this determination on all vouchers, because some
vouchers did not contain the necessary dates.
To determine whether untimely travel vouchers resulted in any adverse
impact on budgetary procedures, we reviewed the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Circular A-34, "Instructions on Budget Execution";
OMB Bulletin No. 91-07, "Budget Execution Procedures for Closing
Accounts"; Title 7 of GAO Policy and Procedures Manual for Guidance
of Federal Agencies; and statutory provisions in 31 U.S.C. 1341 and
31 U.S.C. 1502 that establish limits on the obligation of
appropriated funds. We also contacted NFC for information on how the
Commission dealt with outstanding travel vouchers at the end of
fiscal years. We also obtained information from the Airline
Reporting Corporation on airlines' timeliness restrictions on refunds
for unused tickets.
To determine if the Commission verified whether use of government
contractor-issued charge cards was for official purposes only, we
interviewed Commission staff members and obtained information from
American Express and Diners Club on reports that list transactions
for individual charge cardholders.
We determined the possible impact of statutory limitations on the
Commissioners' travel by reviewing 42 U.S.C. 1975, which limits the
Commission's authority to accept voluntary services, and its
legislative history.
We did our review from February to April 1994, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. All of our work
was done at the headquarters of the Commission on Civil Rights in
Washington, D.C. On July 8, 1994, the Commission on Civil Rights
provided written comments on a draft of this report, which are
reproduced in appendix I.
MOST COMMISSIONERS FILED TIMELY
TRAVEL VOUCHERS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
As of March 31, 1994, 6 of the 10 Commissioners who were provided
airline and train tickets during fiscal year 1992 to February 1994
had filed all required vouchers. In total, 139 vouchers for 199
trips were filed. One Commissioner had not filed 57 vouchers, while
2 other Commissioners each had not filed 1 voucher. The Commission
was reviewing the need for a voucher for another trip, which had been
cancelled. As table 1 shows, 1 Commissioner had received 59 airline
and train tickets but had filed vouchers for only 2 trips. The 59
tickets were valued at $21,897.
Table 1
Travel Vouchers Filed by the
Commissioners, Fiscal Year 1992 Through
February 1994
Number
of Number Percentag
travel of e of
Number voucher outstand Amount total
of s ing of ticket
Commissioner tickets filed\a vouchers tickets value
------------ ------- ------- -------- ------- ---------
A 16 16 0 $3,249 6.50
B 6 6 0 1,540 3.08
C 1 0 0\b 526 1.05
D 21 21 0 3,871 7.74
E 59 2 57 21,897 43.79
F 10 10 0 1,145 2.29
G 0 0 0 0 0.00
H 1 1 0 228 0.46
I 37 36 1 4,197 8.39
J 10 10 0 3,974 7.95
K 38 37 1 9,379 18.76
============================================================
Total 199\b 139 59 $50,006 100.00
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Fiscal year 1994 data are based solely on filed vouchers. The
1994 data on the Commission's payment for transportation tickets were
not yet available.
\a As of March 31, 1994.
\b No voucher was filed for one trip because, according to Commission
staff, after Omega World Travel issued a ticket, the Commissioner
cancelled the travel. Although Commission staff said that the
Commission paid for the ticket, as of March 1994, they did not yet
know the status of the ticket and said they were still probing the
situation. Therefore, the number of filed and outstanding vouchers
will not add to the total number of tickets.
Source: Commission on Civil Rights travel voucher files and records
of Commission payments for transportation tickets provided to
Commission staff.
As also shown in table 1, two other Commissioners each had one
outstanding voucher. The Commissioner who had filed only 2 vouchers
was responsible for 57 (or about 97 percent) of the 59 outstanding
vouchers.
On April 7, 1994, this Commissioner told us that he expected to have
all vouchers filed within 30 days. He said he had not filed the
vouchers because (1) he traveled extensively as the Commission's
Chairperson during fiscal years 1992 and 1993; (2) he had not been
able to obtain clear guidance from the Commission on how to file
vouchers for trips that involved honoraria; and (3) neither he nor
his assistant was provided office space in the Commission's
headquarters until November 1993, and the lack of office space before
then hindered his record keeping.
In January 1992, the Commission's Solicitor provided a response to
the Commissioner regarding his inquiry about trips involving
honoraria. A Commission official said that until recently, the
Commission did not have sufficient space for Commissioners and their
assistants and that space is now provided for Commissioners'
assistants who are based in Washington, D.C.
Of the 139 vouchers filed by the Commissioners, we were able to
determine whether 116 had been filed within 30 days after a trip. We
calculated the number of days between the date the trip ended and the
date the Budget and Finance Division received the travel voucher.\4
As table 2 shows, of the 116 vouchers for which we could determine
the elapsed time between the date the trip ended and the date the
voucher was filed, 81 vouchers were filed within 30 days after a trip
had been completed, as required by applicable federal travel
regulations.\5
Table 2
Timeliness of Vouchers Filed by
Commissioners, for Travel During Fiscal
Year 1992 Through February 1994
Number of days between
date travel ended and date
Budget and Finance Tota Percent
Division received voucher 1992 1993 1994 l of total
-------------------------- ---- ---- ---- ==== --------
Within 30 days 45 29 7 81 69.83
Over 30 days 17 17 1 35 30.17
============================================================
Total 62 46 8 116 100.00
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Commission on Civil Rights voucher files.
The remaining 35 vouchers were filed from 33 to 182 days after the
trip had been completed. Two Commissioners were responsible for most
of these 35 vouchers. One Commissioner, who was one of the
Commissioners with one outstanding travel voucher, was responsible
for 66 percent of the vouchers that were not filed within 30 days.
According to Commission staff, his vouchers were possibly filed
untimely because he did not have an assistant for about 1 year.
Another Commissioner was responsible for about 14 percent of the
vouchers that were not filed within 30 days.
Commission staff said they regularly provided travel material to
Commissioners that included information on the requirement to file
timely vouchers. The travel section in the Commissioner's Handbook
highlights the Commission's policy on timely travel vouchers.\6
Further, in September 1991, the Commission distributed a booklet
responding to commonly asked questions about official travel,
including information on when travel vouchers were to be submitted.
In addition, on April 19, 1993, the Acting Staff Director distributed
to Commissioners and all employees a travel memorandum and
instructions, including information on the requirement to submit
timely travel vouchers. The memorandum stated that noncompliance
with the Commission's policy would subject travelers to cancellation
of their blanket travel authorizations, government contractor-issued
charge cards, and travel authorizations with the Commission's travel
management center. As of March 1994, the Commission had not taken
any of these actions.
--------------------
\4 We could not determine the timeliness of 23 of the 139 vouchers
because the 23 vouchers did not contain the dates needed to make the
determination.
\5 Federal Travel Regulation 41 CFR 301-11.4 (a).
\6 The Commissioner's Handbook addresses areas of concern to
Commissioners and provides an overview of the Commission activities
and administrative matters that affect Commissioners and their
Special Assistants. According to Commission staff, the handbook is
given to all Commissioners upon their appointment.
ADVERSE EFFECTS OF OUTSTANDING
VOUCHERS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Commissioners' failure to submit travel vouchers in a timely manner
has caused the Commission to increase budgetary adjustments at the
end of fiscal years and could lead to violations of the
Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C 1341 (a), and the bona fide needs
statute, 31 U.S.C. 1502 (a). Under 31 U.S.C. 1502 (a), fiscal year
appropriations may be obligated only to meet the legitimate bona fide
needs of the fiscal year for which the appropriation was made. Thus,
temporary duty travel expenses must be charged to the appropriation
for the fiscal year in which the travel occurred.
When travel vouchers remain outstanding from 1 year to another--as in
the case of most of the Commission's outstanding travel
vouchers--they create unliquidated obligations. Under 31 U.S.C.
1341 (a), if an agency lacks sufficient funds to cover outstanding
travel vouchers for travel that occurs during a fiscal year, the
agency would violate the Antideficiency Act. Further, payment of
these vouchers from appropriations for later years would violate the
bona fide needs rule.
At the end of fiscal year 1992, the Commission recorded a $15,000
obligation of fiscal year 1992 funds for outstanding travel vouchers.
According to Commission staff, $10,000 of the funds were obligated
for 34 outstanding vouchers attributable to 1 Commissioner. At the
end of fiscal year 1993, this Commissioner had 23 additional
outstanding vouchers. A Commission staff member said because of an
oversight, the Commission did not record an obligation for the 23
outstanding vouchers. According to NFC, the Commission has
unobligated funds from fiscal year 1993 and possibly from fiscal year
1992. If sufficient unobligated funds are available for the
appropriate fiscal year, the unobligated funds can be used to pay the
travel vouchers relating to travel in the same year.
In its comments on a draft of this report dated July 8, 1994, the
Commission said it had received and approved some of the outstanding
travel vouchers, and the results of its review indicated that neither
the Antideficiency Act nor the bona fide needs rule will be violated
by the final processing of those vouchers. Because all of the
outstanding vouchers had not been filed and those that had been filed
had not been completely processed, we could not verify that the
Commission had sufficient funds for the appropriate fiscal year to
cover these vouchers.
In addition, Federal Travel Regulation 41 CFR 301-11.4 (b) states
that the primary purpose of an agency's supervisory and
administrative review of travel vouchers is to confirm that travel
for which expenses are claimed was performed as authorized. Because
of the outstanding vouchers, as of March 1994 the Commission could
not confirm that travel in fiscal years 1992 and 1993 for which it
paid $21,897 was performed as authorized. Further, when an employee
signs a travel voucher, he or she certifies that all travel was
incurred for official business of the government and that all tickets
have been accounted for. This certification had not been made for
some of the expended Commission travel funds, some of which were
expended over 2 years ago.
The outstanding vouchers have also created the potential for loss of
Commission funds. Fifteen of the transportation tickets with an
issued value of about $6,800 were associated with the outstanding
vouchers for 1 Commissioner and appeared to be either (1) duplicate
tickets or (2) partially used tickets. For example, 4 of the 15
tickets were issued for 2 trips covering the same time period with
the same itinerary except for a change in the final destination.
Eleven additional tickets appeared to have unused portions. Without
the travel vouchers, we could not determine whether the tickets were
used. On April 7, 1994, the Commissioner said he had some unused
tickets, but he did not know exactly how many.
If the tickets were unused, the Commission may be able to obtain
refunds. However, the longer the vouchers are outstanding, the
greater the uncertainty of refund. According to an Airline Reporting
Corporation official, airline tickets are generally valid for 1 year;
after that, individual airlines have the discretion to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether to refund unused tickets. As of the end
of March 1994, 12 of the 15 tickets had been issued more than 1 year
earlier.
Federal travel regulations stipulate that travelers are liable for
the value of issued tickets until all tickets have been used for
official travel purposes or unused tickets have been properly
accounted for on a travel voucher. Federal regulations further state
that travelers should promptly report all adjustments in connection
with unused passenger tickets to prevent a loss to the government,
and failure to do so may subject travelers to liability for any
resulting loss.\7 Material from Omega attached to copies of airline
tickets in the Commissioners' voucher files that we reviewed also
included a statement that travelers are to return all unused tickets
to the travel agency immediately upon returning from a trip or when
trips are cancelled. If the Commission is unable to obtain refunds
for the 15 tickets, the Commissioner to whom the tickets were issued
could be liable for the cost.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Commission said that due
dates were established to resolve outstanding travel tickets, and in
instances where travelers do not respond by the due date, such
tickets will be considered as a debt owed to the government and will
be subject to collection.
--------------------
\7 Federal Travel Regulation 41 CFR 301-1.103 (a) and 301-3.5 (a)
(1).
VERIFICATION THAT USE OF
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR-ISSUED
CHARGE CARDS IS FOR OFFICIAL
PURPOSES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Provisions in the Federal Travel Regulation, 41 CFR 301-15.44 (c) and
301-15.47 (b), stipulate that the government contractor-issued charge
cards are to be used only for official travel purposes and authorized
cash withdrawals. The Commission could review monthly reports
available from the charge card contractor to make this determination.
The Commission could check for purchases of personal items, such as
clothing, and use of the cards for such items as car rentals and food
establishments in the commuting areas of the employees' official duty
stations--where travel expenses are generally not allowed. However,
the Commission did not know if employees had used government
contractor-issued charge cards for nonauthorized or personal
purposes, because it was not reviewing monthly reports of credit card
purchases. Commission staff said that they were not able to do this
because the Commission had received no reports on credit card use
from the government contractors since April 1993.
A Commission staff member said that during April 1993, while
determining the extent of outstanding travel vouchers, she
inadvertently discovered that at least five staff members had used
government contractor-issued charge cards in the commuting areas of
their official duty stations. To reemphasize that such use may be
inappropriate, in April 1993, the Acting Staff Director distributed a
travel memorandum to all Commission staff stressing that use of the
government contractor-issued charge cards was for official travel
expenses only. The memo further stated that monthly listings of
transactions by each cardholder would be reviewed and if the review
revealed inappropriate use, the employee's card would be subject to
cancellation.
Between May 1993 and February 1994, the Commission did not receive
the summary monthly transaction reports from Diners Club, the
government-issued charge card contractor during fiscal year 1993.
According to the Diners Club's Contract Administrator, Diners did not
send the reports to the Commission because (1) the Commission
requested that the reports be discontinued as of May 1993 and (2)
after the Commission reactivated the reports beginning in August
1993, Diners had mailing problems and the reports went to the wrong
address and were eventually returned to the contractor.
Diners' Contract Administrator said the contractor no longer had
information on specifically who from the Commission had requested
that the reports be discontinued. Commission staff members said they
did not request that the reports be discontinued and were not even
aware that they could make such a request. On February 25, 1994, at
our request, Diners Club submitted three of the missing reports to
the Commission but informed us that other reports were not available
because the data had not been assembled between May and July 1993.
In addition, as of March 1994, the Commission had not received the
summary activity reports from American Express for fiscal year 1994
activities. The contractor reported that it was still making
adjustments to its travel accounting system.
When these reports become available, the Commission should be able to
use them to help determine whether cards are being used for personal
purposes.
STATUTORY LIMITATIONS ON
COMMISSIONERS' BILLABLE
WORKDAYS AND VOLUNTEER SERVICES
DO NOT LIMIT TRAVEL
REIMBURSEMENT COMMISSIONERS CAN
RECEIVE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
In our opinion, the limitation on Commissioners' billable workdays
contained in the Commission's annual appropriations acts for the past
several years (most recently in P.L. 102-395 and P.L. 103-121) do
not limit the amount of travel reimbursement Commissioners can
receive. These appropriations limitations on billable workdays refer
to compensation for services--not reimbursement for travel while in
an official travel status. Travel expenses are not compensation or
pay for services rendered. The appropriations restriction on
billable workdays does not limit the number of days the Commissioners
can work in a year, only the number of days for which they can be
paid.\8 Therefore, we believe that as long as a Commissioner is
performing authorized Commission business, the Commissioner is
entitled to be reimbursed for his or her travel expenses.
We also believe that the prohibition in 42 U.S.C. 1975d(b) against
the Commission accepting or utilizing "services of voluntary or
uncompensated personnel" does not apply to the Commissioners. The
legislative history of this provision makes it clear that the
prohibition was intended to prevent the Commission from using
volunteer staff from outside the federal government, especially from
special interest groups, because of the potential adverse effects on
the Commission's independence.\9
--------------------
\8 For example, the Commission's fiscal year 1993 appropriation, P.
L. 102-395, provided that none of the funds appropriated for the
Commission could be used to reimburse Commissioners for more than 75
billable days, except for the Chairperson, who was permitted 125
billable days.
\9 For example, the sponsor of the Senate amendment adding the
prohibition explained: "The intent of that amendment is to make sure
persons who might have a particular interest in some phase of the
problem--who may be members of citizens councils or the NAACP, or
similar organization--will not be employed by the Commission on a
voluntary basis in connection with something that should be
impartial, and that any persons employed on a voluntary basis will
carry on their work on an impartial basis. That is the reason for
that amendment." 103 Cong. Rec. 13,450 (1957) (remarks of Sen.
Knowland).
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
Six of the 10 Commissioners who were provided airline and train
tickets during fiscal year 1992 to February 1994 had filed all
required vouchers. Of the 59 vouchers that had not been filed, 1
Commissioner was responsible for 57. Of the 116 vouchers filed that
had complete data, 81 were filed within 30 days after the trip, as
required by applicable federal travel regulations. The remaining 35
vouchers were late; some had not been filed until 6 months after the
trip had been completed.
Outstanding vouchers create additional budgetary adjustments, could
lead to violations of the Antideficiency Act and the bona fide needs
rule, and could result in a loss of Commission funds if airlines
refuse to refund unused tickets issued for over 12 months. Federal
regulations stipulate that travelers should promptly report all
adjustments in connection with unused passenger tickets to prevent a
loss to the government, and failure to do so may subject travelers to
liability for any resulting loss.
The Commission had not verified that employee use of the government
contractor-issued charge cards was limited to official travel
purposes only. A Commission plan to review monthly reports available
from the government-issued charge card contractor that list
transactions for individual cardholders was not implemented because
the Commission had not received the necessary reports. This
information is needed so that the Commission can review monthly
charge card transactions in order to verify that employees are
complying with federal regulations.
In our opinion, the appropriations limitation on Commissioners'
billable workdays does not limit the amount of travel reimbursement
Commissioners can receive, but it does limit the number of days for
which Commissioners can be paid. As long as a Commissioner is
performing authorized Commission business, he or she is entitled to
travel reimbursement. Further, the statutory provision prohibiting
the Commission from accepting volunteer services was intended to
prevent the Commission from using volunteers from special interest
groups and, in our view, does not apply to the Commissioners.
RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
We recommend that the Staff Director, in consultation with the
Chairperson of the Commission on Civil Rights, direct Commission
staff to determine the liability of the Commissioner who has the 57
outstanding vouchers for any loss that may result from nonrefund of
his airline tickets that were issued over 12 months ago.
We also recommend that the Staff Director, in consultation with the
Chairperson of the Commission, direct Commissioners to file travel
vouchers in a timely manner as required by federal travel
regulations, and that if the Commission does not receive completed
travel vouchers for all trips by the end of August 1994, the Staff
Director should consider directing the Commission staff to cancel the
travel authorization of those Commissioners who have not filed all
outstanding vouchers.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
EVALUATION
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10
On July 8, 1994, the Commission on Civil Rights provided written
comments on a draft of this report, which are included in appendix I.
The Commission agreed that our recommendations were appropriate and
provided planned actions that, when implemented, would minimize the
opportunity for the problems noted in our report to recur. The
Commission said that it had requested all outstanding vouchers and
had received and approved some of them. For airline tickets that
remained outstanding, the Commission said it had established due
dates for submittal of final documents from travelers. The
Commission also said it was revising travel instructions for
Commission staff and would instruct managers to enforce travel
procedures in the future.
In our draft report, we had suggested that the Commission contact GSA
and ask for assistance in requiring the government charge card
contractor to furnish required monthly reports on use of the charge
cards. We had also suggested that Commission staff review the
reports and verify that employees were complying with federal
regulations requiring that use of the cards be limited to official
purposes only. In its comments on our draft report, the Commission
said it is now receiving all management reports from the government
charge card contractor, and charges to the cards are being regularly
monitored.
The Commission generally agreed with most of our findings but raised
the following concerns. The Chairperson said that in contrast to our
conclusion, she had always believed that the statutory prohibition
against the Commission using voluntary personnel applied to the
Commissioners. However, she indicated that the Commission "will
review the GAO finding in this area to determine if any new
procedures are warranted."
In concluding that 42 U.S.C. 1975d(b) does not prohibit the
Commission from accepting the Commissioners' services on an
uncompensated basis, we do not intend to suggest that the Commission
is compelled to accept such services. Rather, we believe the
Commission is free to establish a policy as to whether it will accept
uncompensated services from Commission members.
In addition, the Commission was concerned about statements relating
to who was responsible for discontinuing charge card management
reports provided by the government charge card contractor. However,
in the report, we attributed those statements to the government
charge card contractor and pointed out that the Commission disagreed
with them.
In contrast to our report, the Commission said that only three charge
card activity reports were missing during fiscal year 1993, and all
other reports were available through October 1993. During the audit,
Commission staff told us that they could not implement Commission
plans to review the reports because the Commission had not received
the reports since April 1993. At our request, on February 25, 1994,
the contractor provided the Commission three of the missing
reports--August, September, and October 1993--but indicated that
reports for May, June, and July 1993 were not available. We
incorporated additional agency comments in the report where
warranted.
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1
We are sending copies of this report to the Chairperson, Commission
on Civil Rights; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and
interested congressional committees. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. Major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix II. Please contact me on (202) 512-8387 if
you have any questions concerning this report.
Sincerely yours,
J. William Gadsby
Director, Government Business
Operations Issues
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION ON
CIVIL RIGHTS
============================================================== Letter
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
Now on p. 11.
(See figure in printed edition.)
Text revised.
See p. 4.
Text revised.
Now on p. 4.
Now on p. 8.
Now on pp. 10-11.
Text revised.
See p. 13.
(See figure in printed edition.)
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
John S. Baldwin, Sr., Assistant Director
Lucy M. Hall, Evaluator-in-Charge
Charles T. Angelo, Advisor
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2
Alan N. Belkin, Assistant General Counsel
Jeffrey S. Forman, Senior Attorney