Improper Travel Advance Paid by Equal Employment Opportunity

B-271021 Sep 18, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Because the travel advance was made contrary to EEOC procedures governing payment of travel expenses. Statement of a superior that he would "assume liability for repayment of the funds" is personal to the cashier and does not affect the cashier's liability for the improper payment. DECISION This is in response to a request from Mrs. Because the travel advance was made contrary to EEOC procedures governing payment of travel expenses of witnesses. Background This case involves a travel advance paid to a witness for the EEOC who was not a government employee. Rudolph was to travel from Gillette. Fetzer concluded the memorandum with the following statement: "If there is a subsequent determination that the funds should not have been disbursed for the aforementioned purpose. View Decision Matter of: Improper Travel Advance Paid by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Imprest Fund Cashier File: B-271021 Date: September 18, 1996 An imprest fund cashier at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may not be reimbursed for a travel advance paid from his imprest fund to a witness traveling on government business, because the travel advance was made contrary to EEOC procedures governing payment of travel expenses. The fact that the cashier received instructions from superiors to make the improper payment does not relieve him of responsibility for the resulting deficiency in his account. Statement of a superior that he would "assume liability for repayment of the funds" is personal to the cashier and does not affect the cashier's liability for the improper payment. DECISION This is in response to a request from Mrs. Willie King, Director, Financial Management Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), for a decision as to whether an imprest fund cashier at the EEOC may be reimbursed for a travel advance paid from his imprest fund to an EEOC witness traveling on government business. As set forth below, we conclude that the voucher submitted by the imprest fund cashier for reimbursement may not be paid, because the travel advance was made contrary to EEOC procedures governing payment of travel expenses of witnesses. Background This case involves a travel advance paid to a witness for the EEOC who was not a government employee. The EEOC requested that Ms. Karen Rudolph appear as a witness in a pending matter in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Ms. Rudolph was to travel from Gillette, Wyoming to Cheyenne on June 8, 1994. On June 8, 1994, Mr. Michael Fetzer, Supervisory Program Analyst, EEOC Field Management Programs-West, sent a memorandum to Carlos Villescas, Acting Director of the Denver District, EEOC, requesting that Mr. Villescas "immediately make available from [the] District's imprest fund an amount not to exceed $150.00, and wire it to Ms. Karen Rudolph at Gillette, Wyoming, for her use in conjunction with her 6/8/94 travel from Gillette to Cheyenne Wyoming" in connection with a pending EEOC matter. Mr. Fetzer told Mr. Villescas that "in the circumstances and time frame presented, . . . I see no other option which serves the agency's interests." Mr. Fetzer concluded the memorandum with the following statement: "If there is a subsequent determination that the funds should not have been disbursed for the aforementioned purpose, I will assume liability for repayment of the funds." Mr. Villescas in turn sent a memorandum to Mr. Jerry Mabry, Administrative Officer at the EEOC Denver District Office, informing Mr. Mabry that he was "directed to take $130 from the imprest fund in order to purchase a money order in Ms. Rudolph's name and forward this money in her name via Western Union to Gillette, Wyoming . . . ." At the bottom of Mr. Villescas' June 8 memorandum to Mr. Mabry is the following handwritten notation: "To: Dave Guthrie. Per the above directive, please purchase money order as directed. J. Mabry 6/8/94." On June 8, Mr. David Guthrie, Imprest Fund Cashier for the EEOC Denver District Office, prepared a Standard Form 1165, "Receipt for Cash- Subvoucher," in the amount of $160.00. The stated purpose on the Form 1165 was: "Purchase and send Western Union Money Order to Karen Rudolph." Mr. Guthrie was designated on the form as both the cashier and the recipient of the funds. Also on that day, a Standard Form 1038, "Advance of Funds Application and Account," was prepared on behalf of Ms. Rudolph, and approved in the amount of $130.00. The SF 1038 was signed by Mr. Mabry as "Authorizing Official" and by Mr. Villescas as "Approving Official." Thereupon, Mr. Guthrie used the $160.00 he had received from his imprest fund to purchase a $130.00 "money transfer" from Western Union, payable to Ms. Rudolph. The charge for the transfer was $22.00, resulting in a total expenditure by Mr. Guthrie of $152.00. [1] Later that same day, Mr.