District of Columbia: Private Use of Official Vehicles (Letter Report,
04/09/99, GAO/GGD-99-50).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the District of
Columbia's compliance with Public Law 105-100, focusing on whether: (1)
any District employees were authorized, as of September 1998, to take
home official vehicles; and (2) these employees were aware of the
statutory restriction on using District government vehicles for other
than official business, including home-to-work transportation.

GAO noted that: (1) all of the 46 District entities reported to have
vehicles as of September 30, 1997, now report compliance with the
prohibition against using appropriated funds for government vehicles
taken home by employees; (2) in response to GAO's September 1998
questionnaire to or interviews with the 46 District entities that had
vehicles under their control, 37 entities reported that they did not
authorize anyone to take home a public vehicle; (3) the remaining 9
entities reported that 44 employees were authorized to take home a
public vehicle; (4) subsequently, 8 of the 9 entities told GAO that 21
employees who were still authorized as of September 1998 to take home
public vehicles were no longer doing so; (5) the other entity, the
District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA), which had 23 employees
authorized to take home public vehicles, planned to comply with the law
by funding the cost of vehicles taken home with nonappropriated funds;
(6) GAO concurred that the statutory restriction does not prohibit DCHA
from spending its nonappropriated funds on vehicles that are taken home;
(7) GAO also contacted the 10 entities identified in the District's
Public Vehicle Report as allowing vehicles to be taken home as of
September 30, 1997, about steps they had taken to inform their affected
employees of the restriction on this practice; (8) officials at these 10
entities said that they had notified theirs staff of the change in the
law; (9) 21 of the 22 District employees GAO contacted who were
authorized to take home vehicles as of September 30, 1997, were aware of
the restriction; and (10) the remaining employee said that his entity
had not notified him of the change in policy, but when he became aware
of it from GAO's survey, he stopped taking home a vehicle.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-99-50
     TITLE:  District of Columbia: Private Use of Official Vehicles
      DATE:  04/09/99
   SUBJECT:  Motor vehicles
	     Government owned equipment
	     Surveys
	     Municipal employees
	     Appropriated funds
IDENTIFIER:  District of Columbia

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************
GG99050 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Private Use of Official Vehicles

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia, Committee

on Appropriations, House of Representatives

April 1999 

GAO/GGD-99-50

April 1999   GAO/GGD-99-50

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548

General Government Division

B-281973

Page 1 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

GAO April 9, 1999 The Honorable Ernest J. Istook Chairman,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia Committee on
Appropriations House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter responds to the April 30, 1998,
request of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee
on Appropriations, for information on the status of the District
of Columbia government's compliance with section 150( a)( 1) of
Public Law 105- 100 the District of Columbia Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 1998, which was approved on November 19, 1997 and
any violations of this provision. 1 Under this provision, funds
made available by this appropriations act or any other act may not
be used to provide an officer or employee of the District with an
official vehicle unless it will be used only in the performance of
official duties. 2 Section 150( a)( 1) also provides that except
for police officers who reside in the District, the term official
duties does not include travel between the officer's or employee's
residence and workplace.

As agreed with the Subcommittee, the objectives of this review
were to determine (1) whether any District employees were
authorized, as of September 1998, to take home official vehicles
and (2) if so, whether these employees were aware of the statutory
restriction on using District government vehicles for other than
official business, including home- towork transportation. To
accomplish these objectives, we sent a questionnaire in September
1998 to or interviewed the heads of 46 District entities asking
them if anyone in their entity was authorized to take home an
official vehicle and, if so, who these individuals were and why
were they authorized to take home vehicles. These entities were
identified in the District of Columbia Public Vehicle Report , as
of September 30, 1997, as

1 With minor modifications, the restriction contained in section
150( a)( 1) of Public Law 105- 100 was continued in the District's
fiscal year 1999 appropriations act. 2 Funds made available by the
District's fiscal year 1998 appropriations act include money
appropriated by Congress; local money, such as District tax
revenue; and other money, such as school tuition.

B-281973 Page 2 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

having vehicles under their control. 3 Appendix I contains a list
of the 46 entities. In addition, we sent a questionnaire to 22
judgmentally selected individuals listed in the District's Public
Vehicle Report as having been authorized to take home vehicles as
of September 30, 1997, asking them if they had been informed of
the restriction and, if so, how this information was conveyed to
them.

All of the 46 District entities reported to have vehicles as of
September 30, 1997, now report compliance with the prohibition
against using appropriated funds for government vehicles taken
home by employees. In response to our September 1998 questionnaire
to or interviews with the 46 District entities that had vehicles
under their control, 37 entities reported that they did not
authorize anyone to take home a public vehicle. The remaining 9
entities reported that 44 employees were authorized to take home a
public vehicle. Subsequently, 8 of the 9 entities told us that 21
employees who were still authorized as of September 1998 to take
home public vehicles were no longer doing so. The other entity,
the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA), which had 23
employees authorized to take home public vehicles, plans to comply
with the law by funding the cost of vehicles that are taken home
with nonappropriated funds. We concur that the statutory
restriction does not prohibit DCHA from spending its
nonappropriated funds on vehicles that are taken home.

We also contacted the 10 entities identified in the District's
Public Vehicle Report as allowing vehicles to be taken home as of
September 30, 1997, about steps they had taken to inform their
affected employees of the restriction on this practice. Officials
at these 10 entities said that they had notified their staff of
the change in the law. Twenty- one of the 22 District employees we
contacted who were authorized to take home vehicles as of
September 30, 1997, were aware of the restriction. The remaining
employee said that his entity had not notified him of the change
in policy, but when he became aware of it from our survey, he
stopped taking home a vehicle.

On November 19, 1997, Congress passed Public Law 105- 100, the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998.
Section 150( a)( 1) of the law states the following:

3 One agency, the District of Columbia Sports Commission, was not
listed in the report. Another entity, the Department of Health,
was not in existence at the time of the report. Both of these
entities were covered in our review. Another entity listed in the
report was not included in our review. This entity, the Civilian
Complaint Review Board, no longer exists. Results in Brief

Background

B-281973 Page 3 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

None of the funds made available by this Act or by any other Act
may be used to provide any officer or employee of the District of
Columbia with an official vehicle unless the officer or employee
uses the vehicle only in the performance of the officer's or
employee's official duties. For purposes of this paragraph, the
term official duties' does not include travel between the
officer's or employee's residence and workplace (except in the
case of a police officer who resides in the District of Columbia).

In addition, section 150( a)( 2) of the law required the
District's Chief Financial Officer to submit an inventory by
December 15, 1997, of all the vehicles that were owned; leased; or
operated by the District government as of September 30, 1997. This
inventory was to indicate, among other things, whether a vehicle
was allowed to be taken home by a District officer or employee
and, if so, the officer's or employee's title and place of
residence.

The Public Vehicle Report, which was submitted to Congress on
December 15, 1997, stated that as of September 30, 1997, District
officials or employees were authorized to take home 321 of the
5,750 vehicles that were owned or leased by the District
government. The report noted that these authorizations were
generally limited to entity directors and those public safety
personnel needing to respond immediately to emergencies and life-
threatening situations.

The report also stated that employees had been authorized to take
home vehicles under Mayor's Order 94- 38, Vehicle Utilization
Policy, dated February 18, 1994. The general policy set forth in
this order was that unless the mayor or city administrator
designated otherwise, the use of District vehicles was to relate
to official District business and work activities; all other uses
were prohibited. The order allowed agency heads or their designees
to designate take- home vehicles within their agency. It defined a
designated take- home vehicle as a passenger vehicle assigned to a
specific employee who was permitted to take home a vehicle during
offduty hours to provide 24- hour contact and emergency response
for governmental purposes during times other than normal working
hours. Use of these vehicles for nonofficial purposes was strictly
prohibited. Agency heads were authorized to approve take- home
assignments when they deemed that overnight availability of the
vehicle was in the best interest of the District, and that the
task( s) to be done during off- duty hours required immediate
travel to a job location.

On February 6, 1998, the Chairman of the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (the
Authority) wrote to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia, House Committee on Appropriations,
requesting a legislative modification to

B-281973 Page 4 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

section 150( a) at the earliest opportunity. 4 The Authority
Chairman requested an exception to the restriction for the public
safety entities of the District the Metropolitan Police
Department, the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department,
and the Department of Corrections whose officials and employees
must respond to emergency situations during nonduty hours.

The Authority Chairman also sought exceptions for other entities
that would have to meet one of two criteria that he outlined in
his letter. These criteria were as follows: (1) the employee is
subject to after- hours recall in emergency situations on an
average of at least six times per month or (2) the employee must
respond to after- hours emergency calls at field locations with
specialized equipment. These latter employees included, but were
not limited to, those requiring special communications equipment;
weapons; and specially trained animals. Finally, the Authority
Chairman asked that section 150( a) be amended to enable him to
permit exceptions on a case- by- case basis.

On March 18, 1998, the Subcommittee Chairman responded to the
Authority Chairman's letter advising him that although statutory
amendments to modify the act would be considered in connection
with the District's 1999 appropriations act, neither a
congressional committee nor the Authority are authorized to allow
the expenditure of funds prohibited by statutory language.
Although the restriction on the use of official vehicles was
included in the District's fiscal year 1999 appropriations act, it
was modified to allow the chief of the Metropolitan Police
Department to designate police employees living outside of the
District to take home vehicles.

Prior to our work beginning, nine entities that authorized take
home vehicles, as of September 30, 1997, had rescinded
authorizations for their employees to take home a vehicle between
November 1997 and March 1998. Three of these nine entities
withdrew the authorizations in two steps. Most of the total
authorizations for the police, fire, and correction departments
were rescinded in November and December, 1997. 5 However,

4 As a result of the District's financial crisis in 1994, Congress
established the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority, consisting of five board members
who were appointed by the President, to oversee District
operations. The Authority was to eliminate budget deficits and
cash shortages of the District, ensure the most efficient and
effective delivery of services, and conduct necessary
investigations and studies to determine the fiscal status and
operational efficiency of the District.

5 The police withdrew the authorizations for those individuals not
living in the District. As of June 1998, the police had 110 police
officers living in the District who were authorized to take home
vehicles.

B-281973 Page 5 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

the police, fire, and correction departments did not withdraw
authorizations for 18, 6, and 15 individuals, respectively, until
as late as February or March, 1998. Of the other six entities,
three rescinded authorizations in November 1997, two in December
1997, and one in February 1998.

Appendix II, table II. 1, shows these nine entities, the estimated
number of employees in each entity who were authorized to take
home a vehicle after the passage of the law, and the dates on
which the entities withdrew authorizations. The basic reason
provided by the police, fire, and corrections department officials
for the delay in rescinding all of the authorizations was that
there had been some confusion in the entities since the law passed
about whether the law applied in all situations and whether
exceptions could be granted.

To determine whether District employees had been authorized to
take home official vehicles, we sent a questionnaire in September
1998 to or interviewed the heads of 46 District entities. We asked
them if anyone in their entity was authorized to take home a
vehicle; if the answer was yes, we requested the names of the
individuals and the reasons for the authorization. In addition, we
contacted the Authority and the new Office of the Chief Management
Officer to determine if either had been assigned any vehicles;
neither had been.

To determine what actions the entities had taken in fiscal year
1998 to inform their employees of the new restriction on taking
home official vehicles, we interviewed District officials at the
10 entities that the District reported had authorized vehicles to
be taken home as of September 30, 1997. These entities were the
Metropolitan Police Department, the Department of Corrections, the
Department of Human Services, the Department of Public Works, the
Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, the
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, the District of
Columbia Public Schools, the Department of Housing and Community
Development, the Department of Administrative Services, and the
Office of the City Administrator. We also included the new
Department of Health because several positions transferred to it
had authority to take home vehicles in fiscal year 1997.

We also contacted individuals who had been authorized as of
September 30, 1997, to take home official vehicles to determine if
they knew about the change in the law. We judgmentally selected a
sample of 22 individuals from the 321 individuals listed in the
District's 1997 Public Vehicle Report. From the 10 entities that
were reported as having authorized vehicles to be Scope and

Methodology

B-281973 Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

taken home at the end of fiscal year 1997, we selected 1 employee
from each of 5 entities, 2 employees from each of 3 entities, and
11 Police Department employees. For the 10 th entity, the 1
employee authorized to take home a vehicle no longer worked for
the agency. The number of employees selected was based on the
number of employees reported as being authorized by each entity to
take home a vehicle. For example, the entities with only 1 person
selected had from 1 to 4 individuals authorized to take home a
vehicle whereas the Police Department, which had 11 persons
selected, had 232 individuals authorized to take home a vehicle.
We sent each of the selected employees a questionnaire asking if
the employee was aware of the statutory restriction on taking
government vehicles home and, if so, how he or she learned about
the law and when they had last taken home a vehicle. All 22
individuals responded to the questionnaire. Due to the size and
nature of the sample, these responses cannot be statistically
projected.

In conducting our review, we did not independently verify the
responses to the questionnaire. Also, as agreed with the
Subcommittee, we did not attempt to determine whether any District
employees were taking home official vehicles without proper
authorization. Lastly, we did not attempt to determine if an
entity was funding the use of a vehicle by some other means, such
as a provision of a vehicle allowance.

We did our work in Washington, D. C., between June 1998 and
February 1999 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. We requested comments on a draft of this
report from the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the City
Council Chairman, the Authority Chairman, the Interim Chief
Financial Officer, and eight of the nine entities that had not
withdrawn authorizations for individuals to take home official
vehicles as of September 1998. At one entity, the Taxicab
Commission, we did not seek comments because the Taxicab Chairman
who had been violating the law had left the entity, and he was the
only individual we had talked to at the Commission.

In response to our September 1998 questionnaire or interviews, the
majority of the entities (37 of 46) reported practices that were
in compliance with the restriction in section 150( a)( 1). Thirty-
six entities reported that as of September 1998, no one was
authorized to take home a vehicle. The 37 th entity, the
Metropolitan Police Department, reported that as of June 9, 1998,
110 officers all District residents were authorized to take home
vehicles, a practice that is allowed under section 150( a)( 1),
and Nine Entities Were Not

in Compliance With the Law As of September 1998

B-281973 Page 7 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

that no employees living outside of the District had been
authorized to do so. 6

The remaining 9 entities DCHA, the Water and Sewer Authority
(WASA), the Office of Corporation Counsel, the Council of the
District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Public Schools, the
Public Service Commission, the District of Columbia Sports
Commission, the Taxicab Commission, and the University of the
District of Columbia (UDC) reported that as of September 1998, 44
employees were authorized to take home vehicles and had done so at
various times during the year. Although each entity presented
various reasons for allowing the employees to take home vehicles,
we determined that the nine entities had not complied with the
restriction in section 150( a)( 1). Appendix II, table II. 2,
shows these nine entities, the title and location of residence of
the employees who were authorized to take home a vehicle, and the
authorizing official.

Officials from the nine entities that were not in compliance with
the statute as of September 1998 informed us that they would
comply. Eight of the entities said that their employees were no
longer authorized to take home a vehicle as of February 1999. The
other entity plans to comply with the law by funding the cost of
vehicles that are taken home with nonappropriated funds. Table 1
shows the number of employees at these nine entities, by entity,
who were authorized to take home vehicles.

District entities Number of employees

Housing Authority 23 Water and Sewer Authority 9 Office of
Corporation Counsel 6 Council of the District of Columbia 1
District of Columbia Public Schools 1 Public Service Commission 1
Sports Commission 1 Taxicab Commission 1 University of the
District of Columbia 1

Total employees authorized 44

Sources: Officials of entities listed.

6 An officer who had been paralyzed in the line of duty by another
officer was granted permission by the Police Chief in August 1998
to use a van that had been purchased and modified to meet her
needs. The van was made available to her so that she could go to
and from therapy sessions as well as for other purposes connected
with her efforts to recover from her injuries. The District's
appropriations act for fiscal year 1999 authorized the van to be
donated to the officer as a gift on behalf of the District. The
Nine Entities Now

Report That They Will Comply With Law

Table 1: Number of Employees, by District Entity, Who Were
Authorized to Take Home Vehicles as of September 1998

B-281973 Page 8 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

The nine entities provided the following reasons for originally
allowing employees to take home vehicles:

 DCHA: Twenty- three employees were authorized to take home an
official vehicle. DCHA officials told us that they believed the
law did not apply to DCHA because it is independent of the
District government and does not receive funding through the
District's appropriations process. While we agree that DCHA is an
independent entity not subject to the Mayor's authority, it is an
instrumentality of the District government and receives
appropriated funds from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Therefore, we believe that DCHA is subject to the
appropriations restriction in section 150( a)( 1). After
discussing this issue with DCHA officials, they agreed. In the
future, they said that they would comply with the law by funding
the cost of vehicles that are taken home by using nonappropriated
funds. We do not believe the restriction in section 150( a)( 1),
which applies to appropriated funds, prohibits DCHA from spending
nonappropriated funds to pay for the entire cost associated with
vehicles that are taken home. DCHA officials have told us that the
funds that will be used to pay for these vehicles will come from
DCHA's local funds account, which is derived entirely from
nonappropriated fund sources, such as rental income, investment
income, and antenna leases.

 WASA: Nine employees were authorized to take home official
vehicles, on the basis of the needs of the entity. Three employees
the General Manager, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Engineer
had contracts that allowed them to use an official vehicle and
required that they reimburse WASA for personal use of the vehicle.
These contracts were signed before the law restricting the use of
official vehicles had passed. The General Manager authorized the
other six employees to take home vehicles on the basis of their
duties and responsibilities. Each authorization was reconsidered
annually. According to the General Manager, WASA did not believe
that vehicle restrictions applied to it, primarily because of
WASA's independence from the District government. After
discussions with us, in which we told him of our view that WASA's
employees were employees of the District, the General Manager
agreed to stop allowing public vehicles to be taken home.

 Office of Corporation Counsel: The Corporation Counsel reported
that six employees were authorized to take home vehicles on an as-
needed basis. These employees were to use the vehicles to serve
legal documents, such as subpoenas, summonses, and contempt
motions, outside of regular business hours when attempts during
the day were

B-281973 Page 9 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

unsuccessful. The Principal Deputy Corporation Counsel, responding
on behalf of the office, told us that these employees were
inadvertently not informed of the fiscal year 1998 change in the
law on taking home official vehicles. After receiving our
questionnaire on this issue, the employees were informed of the
change in the law and their authorizations to take home a vehicle
were withdrawn.

 Council of the District of Columbia: The Council Chairman was
authorized to take home a vehicle. The Council's General Counsel
had determined that the Chairman was authorized to take home a
vehicle. However, after receiving our questionnaire, the Chairman
requested a review of the issue by the Corporation Counsel who
determined that the Chairman was not authorized. In November 1998,
a Council representative told us the Chairman has discontinued
taking home an official vehicle.

 District of Columbia Public Schools: One employee, the Chief of
Security, was authorized to take home a vehicle. He told us when
the law passed in 1997, the then- Superintendent of Schools
informed his staff that no one was authorized to take home a
vehicle except for the Chief of Security. This exception was
because he was on 24- hour call to respond to all incidents at
schools and investigate white- collar crime in the District's
schools. The Chief has arrest authority and uses a policecertified
emergency vehicle. The Chief continued to take home a car until
September 1998 when, after receiving our questionnaire, the new
Superintendent informed him that no one was authorized to take
home a car.

 Public Service Commission: One employee at the Commission was
authorized to take home a vehicle on a limited basis. This person
was to take home the vehicle when late night or early morning
pick- ups were required as part of his official duties. According
to a Commission official, the Commission did not believe the law
applied to it. The Commission receives its spending authority
through the District of Columbia's appropriations law but then
bills the various public utilities for the actual money spent. For
this reason, the Commission did not believe that it fell under the
statutory restriction. However, according to an official at the
District's Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Commission
is considered to receive its funding through the appropriations
act. Upon learning this, the Commission rescinded the individual's
authority to take home a vehicle.

B-281973 Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

 Sports Commission: The Commission's Executive Director told us
that his contract provided him with an official vehicle for his
use. While the Commission knew about the law, it did not believe
the law applied to the Commission because the Commission was an
independent entity of the District Government. Further, the law
creating the Commission stated that its employees were not
employees of the District. However, this law was amended in
January 1995 to provide that members of the Commission, who had
been employees of the Armory Board before August 23, 1994, would
be considered employees of the District. The Executive Director
had been the General Manager of the Armory Board before his
current position. He told us that he believed the change in the
law applied only to retirement and health benefits. After
discussions with us, in which we informed him of our view that he
was a District employee, the Executive Director agreed to stop
taking home an official vehicle.

 Taxicab Commission: The Commission Chairman told us he was under
the impression that last spring some exceptions had been granted
for individuals like him to use the vehicle on a 24- hour basis.
He stated that in performing his official duties, the vehicle is
needed on a 24- hour basis to respond to incidents involving
taxicabs, limousines, cars, shuttles, and buses that provide
service in the District and are regulated by the Commission. His
official duties require that he monitor the conduct of taxicabs
and vehicles for hire providing service throughout the District at
hotels, museums, the bus terminal, Union Station, Capitol Hill,
MCI Arena events, the Kennedy Center, the National Theater, and
other locations in the District. He said that he constantly
performs his official duties on an ongoing basis and must have the
vehicle available to conduct random inspections of taxicabs.
Further, he noted that when the vehicle was left at the
Commission's office, it had been stolen twice and broken into and
vandalized three times. After discussions with us, in which we
told him that the only exception in the law was for police
officers living in the District, the Commission Chairman agreed to
stop taking home an official vehicle.

 UDC: The President of UDC was allowed to take home a vehicle. He
told us that the contract of his predecessor contained a clause
authorizing the use of a vehicle. In accepting the position, he
agreed to abide by the previous contract terms while his own
contract was being negotiated. The purchase, operation, and
maintenance of this vehicle were funded with the tuition collected
by UDC. Further, the University Counsel stated that the President
is required by contract to live in a residence that is UDC
property. By contract, both the President and UDC use the

B-281973 Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

residence for official functions. Since the President commutes
between UDC- owned facilities, UDC officials did not believe the
law applied. After discussions with us, in which we told
University officials of our view that the restriction applies to
tuition funds and it does not distinguish between a private
residence or one that is owned by a District entity, the President
agreed to stop taking home the vehicle.

We judgmentally selected 22 employees at 9 entities who the
District reported as taking home a vehicle during fiscal year 1997
and sent them a questionnaire asking whether they were aware of
the enactment of the restriction on taking home vehicles for
fiscal year 1998. Twenty- one responded that they knew about the
law. These employees told us that they had been notified, either
personally or in writing, of the change in the law. The last
employee said he was unaware of the change in the law until he
received our survey, at which time he stopped taking home a car.
An official of the entity for which this employee worked said that
a memorandum had been sent to division heads concerning the
restriction, and that it was their job to inform the staff.
However, the entity official was not able to provide us with a
copy of this memorandum.

We discussed the actions taken to inform employees of the change
in the vehicle use law with officials of 10 entities. According to
entity officials, each of these entities had notified the affected
staff of the change. The Department of Human Services Director,
for example, in a memorandum to all employees dated December 4,
1997, stated that Effective immediately, there can be no use of
official vehicles to commute to your homes. Solid Waste Management
Administration, Department of Public Works, employees were told in
a memorandum dated December 4, 1997, that NOBODY in the Solid
Waste Management Administration shall take a vehicle home, for any
reasons. The Police Department's Office of Professional
Responsibility required the members of the force of that office to
sign an acknowledgement that they had received the Interim Police
Chief's December 15, 1997, memorandum about the law.

When we surveyed the 46 entity heads, we also learned that 6
employees who were taking home vehicles to carry out official
duties during off- duty hours in the Office of Corporation Counsel
had not been notified of the change in the law. As previously
discussed, this oversight has been corrected. Entities' Efforts to

Notify Staff of Change in Law

B-281973 Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

At the time of our review, most of the District government
entities we surveyed reported practices that were in compliance
with section 150( a)( 1) of Public Law 105- 100. However, on the
basis of the information we were provided, we concluded that nine
entities that responded to our inquiry had not complied with this
provision and had improperly permitted employees to take home
official vehicles. Either as a result of our inquiry or after we
informed these entities that we considered them to be in violation
of the restrictions in section 150( a)( 1), eight of them
rescinded the authorization to take home vehicles, and the
affected individuals have reportedly ceased the practice. The
remaining entity, DCHA, plans to use nonappropriated funds to
cover the cost of vehicles that are taken home. We concur that the
statutory restriction does not prohibit DCHA from spending its
nonappropriated funds on vehicles that are taken home.

On February 19, 1999, we provided a draft of this report to the
Mayor, District of Columbia; Chairman, Council of the District of
Columbia; Chairman, District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Authority; the Interim Chief Financial
Officer, District of Columbia; Receiver, District of Columbia
Housing Authority; General Manager, District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority; Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia Office
of Corporation Counsel; Superintendent, District of Columbia
Public Schools; Chairman, District of Columbia Public Service
Commission; Executive Director, District of Columbia Sports
Commission; and the President, University of the District of
Columbia.

On February 26, March 9, and March 15, 1999, the Receiver,
District of Columbia Housing Authority; the Interim Chief
Financial Officer, District of Columbia; and Executive Director,
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority, provided written comments. The Receiver
explained how he would fund taking vehicles home with
nonappropriated funds. (See app. III.) The Interim Chief Financial
Officer concurred with the report and provided a copy of a
memorandum to all department and agency heads issued on February
25, 1999, which clearly sets forth the statutory prohibition on
the use of government vehicles. (See app. IV.) The Executive
Director commented on the history of the Authority's actions
concerning the issue discussed and pointed out that as of January
2, 1999, the day- to- day operations of the District of Columbia
have been delegated to the Mayor. (See app. V.)

The following entities provided oral comments. On February 25,
1999, the General Manager, District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority, concurred with our report. On March 4, 1999, the
Mayor's Deputy Director, Conclusions

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

B-281973 Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

Office of Intergovernmental Relations, responded stating that it
is the Mayor's position that all entities should abide by all
federal laws and that it was the responsibility of entity heads to
see that this is done. On March 4, 1999, the Principal Deputy,
Office of Corporation Counsel; Executive Secretary, Public Service
Commission; and the Executive Director, District of Columbia
Sports Commission, called to state that they concurred with our
report. On March 11, 1999, the Chief Financial Officer, University
of the District of Columbia, said that the University concurred
with the report. On March 18, 1999, the Secretary to the Council
of the District of Columbia told us that the Chairman concurred
with the report.

The Superintendent, District of Columbia Public Schools, did not
provide either oral or written comments.

We are sending copies of this report to Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison, Senator Richard J. Durbin, and Senator George V.
Voinovich and to Representative Tom Davis, Representative Eleanor
Holmes Norton, and Representative James P. Moran in their
capacities as Chair or Ranking Minority Member of Senate and House
Subcommittees. We are also sending copies to the Honorable Anthony
A. Williams, Mayor, District of Columbia; Ms. Alice Rivlin,
Chairman, District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority; Mr. E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr.,
Inspector General, District of Columbia; and other interested
parties. Copies will also be made available to the heads of the
nine entities reported to be in noncompliance with section 150(
a)( 1) of Public Law 105- 100 as of September 1998 and to others
upon request.

Major contributors to this letter are listed in appendix VI. If
you have any questions, please call me on (202) 512- 8387.

Sincerely yours, Bernard L. Ungar Director, Government Business

Operations Issues

Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

Contents 1 Letter 16 Appendix I District of Columbia Entities We
Contacted Concerning Compliance With Public Law 105- 100, Section
150( a)( 1)

18 Appendix II Position Title and Location of Residence of
Employees Who Were Authorized to Take Home Official Vehicles in
Fiscal Year 1998

20 Appendix III Comments From the District of Columbia Housing
Authority

22 Appendix IV Comments From the District of Columbia Office of
the Chief Financial Officer

Contents Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

Appendix V Comments From the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority

23 24 Appendix VI Major Contributors to This Report

Table 1: Number of Employees, by District Entity, Who Were
Authorized to Take Home Vehicles as of September 1998

7 Table II. 1: Nine Entities That Withdrew Employee

Authorizations by March 1998 18

Table II. 2: Nine Entities That Were in Noncompliance With the Law
as of September 1998

18 Tables

Abbreviations

DCHA District of Columbia Housing Authority UDC University of the
District of Columbia WASA Water and Sewer Authority

Appendix I District of Columbia Entities We Contacted Concerning
Compliance With Public Law 105- 100, Section 150( a)( 1)

Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

 Board of Elections and Ethics

 Commission on Arts and Humanities

 Council of the District of Columbia

 Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency

 Court System/ Superior Court

 Department of Administrative Services

 Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs

 Department of Corrections

 Department of Employment Services

 Department of Health

 Department of Housing and Community Development

 Department of Human Rights and Local Business

 Department of Human Services

 Department of Public Works

 Department of Recreation

 Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Economic Development

 Energy Office

 Executive Office of the Mayor

 Health and Hospitals Public Benefit Corporation

 Housing Authority

 Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board

 Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Medical Services

 Metropolitan Police Department

 Office of Aging

 Office of Banking and Financial Institutions

 Office of Cable Television and Telecommunications

 Office of Campaign Finance

 Office of Chief Financial Officer

 Office of City Administrator

 Office of Corporation Counsel

 Office of Economic Development

 Office of Emergency Preparedness

 Office of Financial Operations and Systems

 Office of Grants Management and Development

 Office of Inspector General

 Office of People's Counsel

 Office of Personnel

 Office of the Secretary

 Office of Tax and Revenue

 Public Library

 Public Schools

 Public Service Commission

Appendix I District of Columbia Entities We Contacted Concerning
Compliance With Public Law 105- 100, Section 150( a)( 1)

Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

 Sports Commission

 Taxicab Commission

 University of the District of Columbia

 Water and Sewer Authority

Appendix II Position Title and Location of Residence of Employees
Who Were Authorized to Take Home Official Vehicles in Fiscal Year
1998

Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

Entity Number of employees

Month authorization rescinded

Metropolitan Police Department 104 a December 1997 Metropolitan
Police Department 18 February 1998 Department of Corrections 10 b
December 1997 Department of Corrections 15 February 1998
Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Medical Services 9 b December 1997
Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Medical Services 6 March 1998
Department of Administrative Services 1 b November 1997 Department
of Housing and Community Development 1 b November 1997 Office of
the City Administrator 1 b November 1997 Department of Human
Services 22 b December 1997 Department of Public Works 18 b
December 1997 Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs 2 b
February 1998 a. The 104 for the police is estimated based on the
number authorized to take vehicles home as of

September 30, 1997, and the number authorized to take home a
vehicle as of June 8,1998. Under the law, police officers that
live in the District can be authorized to take home a vehicle. b
These numbers are based on figures as of September 30, 1997.

Source: GAO summary of information provided by District of
Columbia officials.

Entity Employee's title Employee's residence Authorizing official

Water and Sewer Authority General Manager District Board of
Directors

Chief Financial Officer Virginia General Manager Chief Engineer
Virginia General Manager Assistant General Manager District
General Manager Director, Sewer Services Department Maryland
General Manager Director, Water Services Department Virginia
General Manager Acting Director of Water Measurement and Billing
Department

Maryland General Manager Public Affairs Manager Maryland General
Manager Manager, Engineering and Technical Services Department
Maryland General Manager Office of Corporation Counsel
Investigator District Corporation Counsel

Investigator District Corporation Counsel Investigator District
Corporation Counsel Investigator Maryland Corporation Counsel
Investigator Maryland Corporation Counsel Investigator Maryland
Corporation Counsel Council of the District of Columbia Chairman
District Chairman District of Columbia Public Schools Director,
Division of Security Virginia Then- Superintendent

Table II. 1: Nine Entities That Withdrew Employee Authorizations
by March 1998

Table II. 2: Nine Entities That Were in Noncompliance With the Law
as of September 1998

Appendix II Position Title and Location of Residence of Employees
Who Were Authorized to Take Home Official Vehicles in Fiscal Year
1998

Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

Public Service Commission Administrative Clerk District Chairman
Sports Commission Executive Director Maryland Sports Commissioner
Taxicab Commission Chairman District Chairman University of the
District of Columbia President District Board of Trustees District
of Columbia Housing Authority Receiver District Receiver

Chief Inspector District Receiver Manager, Regional Maintenance
Maryland Receiver Regional Maintenance Director District Receiver
Boiler Plant Foreman District Receiver Security Operations Manager
Maryland Receiver Director, Public Affairs District Receiver
Regional Administrator (Potomac) District Receiver Chief,
Mechanical Operations Heating Virginia Receiver Director, Occupied
Unit Rehabilitation/ Construction District Receiver Director,
Finance (temporary approval) District Receiver Director, Housing/
Maintenance Management Maryland Receiver Regional Maintenance
Director Virginia Receiver Regional Administrator (Anacostia)
Maryland Receiver Regional/ Construction Division Director
Virginia Receiver Regional Administrator (Rock Creek) District
Receiver Maintenance Supervisor Maryland Receiver Facility
Manager, Site & Structure Maryland Receiver Director, Development
and Modernization (Heating Season only)

Maryland Receiver Regional Maintenance Director District Receiver
Director, Vacant Unit Program Virginia Receiver Chief of Police,
DCHA Police Department Virginia Receiver Fire Safety Officer
Maryland Receiver Sources: Responses to GAO questionnaire and
District of Columbia officials.

Appendix III Comments From the District of Columbia Housing
Authority

Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

Appendix III Comments From the District of Columbia Housing
Authority

Page 21 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

Appendix IV Comments From the District of Columbia Office of the
Chief Financial Officer

Page 22 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

Appendix V Comments From the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority

Page 23 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

Appendix VI Major Contributors to This Report

Page 24 GAO/GGD-99-50 Private Use of Official Vehicles

Ronald L. King, Assistant Director Thomas G. Keightley, Evaluator-
in- Charge Joshua M. Bartzen, Evaluator

Alan Belkin, Assistant General Counsel Robert J. Heitzman, Senior
Attorney General Government

Division, Washington, D. C.

Office of the General Counsel, Washington, D. C.

Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and
testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be
sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money
order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary.
VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for
100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted
25 percent.

Order by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit: Room 1100 700 4 th St. NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW)
U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using
fax number (202) 512- 6061, or TDD (202) 512- 2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a
touch- tone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how
to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send
e- mail message with info in the body to:

info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http:// www. gao. gov

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548-
0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. G100

(240307)

*** End of document. ***