B-303920, Clarence Maddox � Relief of Liability for Improper Payments for Bottled Water, March 21, 2006

B-303920 Mar 21, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights We deny relief for a disbursing/certifying officer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida who certified improper payments to purchase bottled water for court employees in the absence of any documentation that the available drinking water posed a health risk. While the disbursing/certifying officer claims that he was unaware that the bottled water being purchased was for employees (bottled water for jurors is an allowable expense), and that he certified the payments in good faith, we do not agree. To find "good faith" as used in the relief statute requires that there be no doubt regarding, nor reason to doubt, the propriety of the payments. Since the record states that the payments for employee bottled water came from a different account than that for juror bottled water, and vouchers for the improper purchases indicate that each purchase was funded by that different, non-juror, account, we find that reasonable examination of the vouchers should have identified the water being purchased as other than for jurors. We therefore cannot conclude that he had no reason to doubt the propriety of the payments. View Decision B-303920, Clarence Maddox – Relief of Liability for Improper Payments for Bottled Water, March 21, 2006 B-303920 March 21, 2006 Mr. Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director Administrative Office of the United States Courts Washington, D.C.20544 Subject: Clarence Maddox – Relief of Liability for Improper Payments for Bottled Water Dear Mr. Mecham: This responds to your request that we relieve Mr. Clarence Maddox, Clerk of Court for the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (the court), from liability for improper payments for bottled water in the amount of $1,433.22.[1] For the reasons stated below, Mr. Maddox is relieved of liability by operation of law for 27 payments made prior to March 2003, totalling $947.62. With regard to the remaining 11 payments, totalling $485.60, we are unable to grant relief. Background At the time of the payments at issue, Mr. Maddox acted as both disbursing and certifying officer[2] for the court. September letter at 1. The bottled water in question was purchased for employees at the Fort Pierce Division courthouse. Id. at 2. The first authorization of payment for bottled water for the Fort Pierce staff was made by Mr. Maddox's predecessor clerk of court in 1997, two years prior to Mr. Maddox's appointment in 1999. Id.; an undated memo to file labeled –Attachment 2.— Apparently, these payments were made periodically thereafter, continuing after Mr. Maddox's appointment, until February 2004. At that time, Mr. Maddox was informed of the results of an external audit covering the period January 1, 2001, through September 30, 2003, which indicated that $1,216.49 in payments for staff bottled water at Fort Pierce were improper. Maddox request at 1-2; February 2004 external audit of the court covering the period Jan. 1, 2001, through Sept. 30, 2003, at 3, 16. At that point, Mr. Maddox stopped the payments. September letter at 2. Statute of Limitations Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. sect. 3526(c) (2000), our Office is authorized to settle accounts of accountable officers and to grant or deny relief –within 3 years after the date the Comptroller General receives the account.— B-287043, May 29, 2001; B'251994, Sept. 24, 1993. However, since accounts are now maintained and audited by the agencies themselves, the focal point for beginning the 3-year period has changed to when the agencies themselves are able to identify discrepancies in their accounts, i.e., the date a –substantially complete— account is available to the agency for audit. B-251994, Sept. 24, 1993. Here, in his role as disbursing officer, Mr. Maddox was required to submit a monthly statement of accountability, including all supporting documents. AOUSC's Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures, Vol. 1, Chapter 7, Part E – Reporting, paragraphs 1.2, 2.1, 2.2. It is with the receipt of the monthly statements of accountability that Mr. Maddox's account was substantially complete for purposes of AOUSC audit.[3] As a result, Mr. Maddox is relieved by operation of law with respect to 27 of the improper payments at issue, those made prior to March 2003, which have a total value of $947.62. Hence, Mr. Maddox remains liable only for the remaining improper payments for which relief was requested, 11 payments with a total value of $485.60. This decision addresses his relief of liability for those 11 payments only. Discussion Since bottled drinking water for employees is ordinarily considered a personal expense, appropriated funds may be used to purchase bottled drinking water for employees only upon a showing of necessity. B-247871, Apr. 10, 1992.