B-157312, MAY 23, 1966

B-157312, MAY 23, 1966

TO DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW COMMISSION:

IN YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 13, 1966, YOU REQUESTED THAT WE REVIEW SEVERAL TRAVEL VOUCHERS COVERING EXPENSES OF TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE INCURRED BY MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW COMMISSION INCIDENT TO THEIR ATTENDANCE AT A MEETING OF THE COUNCIL IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

THE APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISION IS THAT CONTAINED IN SECTION 6 (C) OF PUB.L. 88-606, READING AS FOLLOWS:

"MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL SHALL SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION, BUT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR ACTUAL TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES INCURRED IN ATTENDING MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL CALLED OR APPROVED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION OR IN CARRYING OUT DUTIES ASSIGNED BY THE CHAIRMAN.'

THE QUOTED SECTION LIMITS REIMBURSEMENT OF A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL TO THOSE NECESSARY TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES THAT ACTUALLY ARE INCURRED BY A MEMBER INCIDENT TO ATTENDING MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL, OR OTHERWISE IN CARRYING OUT THE ASSIGNED DUTIES AS MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. THUS IN ANY CASE WHERE A MEMBER ARRIVED AT WASHINGTON, D.C., EARLY OR REMAINED BEYOND THE PERIOD REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR ATTENDANCE AT A MEETING THE ADDITIONAL SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES SO INCURRED WOULD NOT BE REIMBURSABLE. ALSO, IT IS IMPLICIT IN THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE THAT REIMBURSEMENT BE LIMITED TO THE TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES OF THE COUNCIL MEMBER HIMSELF AND THAT SUCH REIMBURSEMENT MAY NOT BE MADE FOR SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES THAT THE MEMBER MAY HAVE INCURRED IN BEHALF OF OTHER PERSONS.

THE HOTEL BILLS SUPPORTING SEVERAL OF THE SUBMITTED VOUCHERS INCLUDE CHARGES FOR LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS. WHILE SUCH LONG DISTANCE CHARGES WERE NOT CLAIMED ON CERTAIN OF THE VOUCHERS THEY WERE CLAIMED ON AT LEAST ONE OF THE SUBMITTED VOUCHERS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1939, 31 U.S.C. 680A, ESTABLISHING THAT THE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS CLAIMED ON A VOUCHER WERE NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL, REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUCH CALLS SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. SEE ALSO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 8.2, STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS.

WE NOTE THAT THE HOTEL BILLS IN SUPPORT OF CERTAIN VOUCHERS INCLUDED ABOVE AVERAGE RESTAURANT BILLS FOR PARTICULAR DAYS, INDICATING EXPENDITURES FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT OF GUESTS; ALSO, CERTAIN BEVERAGE CHARGES SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. IN SOME CASES THE COUNCIL MEMBER DID NOT CLAIM THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE RESTAURANT AND BEVERAGE BILL, APPARENTLY RECOGNIZING THAT AMOUNTS EXPENDED FOR ENTERTAINMENT OR FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WOULD NOT BE ALLOWABLE. IN OTHER CASES THE MEMBER DID CLAIM SUCH AMOUNTS, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE RULE THAT ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE EXPENDITURES ARE NOT REIMBURSABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTE SPECIFICALLY SO PROVIDING. SEE 5 COMP. GEN. 455, ID. 1018, 26 COMP. GEN. 281, AND 43 COMP. GEN. 305. IN ANY CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF THE RESTAURANT BILL REASONABLY INDICATES THAT THE MEMBER'S CLAIM INCLUDES REIMBURSEMENT FOR CHARGES INCURRED IN ENTERTAINING GUESTS OR INCURRED FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, SUCH ITEMS SHOULD BE DENIED AS NOT REIMBURSABLE.

CLAIM IS MADE FOR THE EXPENSE OF A "GET-TOGETHER AFFAIR (PLLRC) WASHINGTON-HILTON.' WE UNDERSTAND FROM OUR INFORMAL DISCUSSION OF THIS PROBLEM THAT THIS EXPENSE REPRESENTED THE AMOUNT PAID FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND THAT A PORTION OF THE AMOUNT SO PAID FOR SUCH BEVERAGES WAS USED TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSES OF THE FACILITY IN WHICH THE GET-TOGETHER AFFAIR WAS HELD. IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES OF THE NATURE HERE INVOLVED, WE WOULD NOT BE WARRANTED IN APPROVING SUCH EXPENSES AS CONSTITUTING A REIMBURSABLE ITEM OF SUBSISTENCE.

IN A CASE IN WHICH A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL CLAIMS TAXICAB FARES INCIDENT TO HIS ATTENDANCE AT A MEETING OR MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL BUT CANNOT RECALL THE SPECIFIC POINTS BETWEEN WHICH CABS WERE UTILIZED, THERE WOULD BE NO BASIS WARRANTING ALLOWING HIM ANY MORE THAN THE AVERAGE AMOUNT EXPENDED BY ALL OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR CAB TRANSPORTATION INCIDENT TO ATTENDANCE AT THE SAME MEETING OR MEETINGS.

WHEN MEALS ARE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF AN AIRPLANE TICKET AND IN FACT ARE PROVIDED DURING THE COURSE OF A FLIGHT, IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER TO ALLOW REIMBURSEMENT FOR DUPLICATE MEALS PURCHASED AFTER THE MEMBER LEAVES THE PLANE, IN THE ABSENCE OF JUSTIFIABLE REASONS WHY THE MEMBER DID NOT PARTAKE OF THE MEALS SERVED ON THE FLIGHT OR IF HE DID SO WHY EXTRA MEALS WERE JUSTIFIED.

WE ARE RETURNING HEREWITH THE VOUCHERS YOU TRANSMITTED HERE. THEY MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT IN AMOUNTS OTHERWISE DUE AFTER MODIFICATION TO COMPLY WITH THE FOREGOING GENERAL RULES AND PRINCIPLES.

WE NOTE THAT THE COMMISSION'S MEMORANDUM OF FEBRUARY 18, 1966, UPON THE SUBJECT "TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES; ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETINGS" PURPORTS TO AUTHORIZE REIMBURSEMENT UPON A MILEAGE BASIS FOR PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE TRAVEL INCIDENT TO ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL.

SECTION 6 (C) OF PUB.L. 88-606 PROVIDES ONLY FOR THE PAYMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES OF TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE--- NOT FOR A COMMUTED ALLOWANCE SUCH AS MILEAGE OR PER DIEM. THEREFORE, APPROPRIATE ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO MODIFY YOUR INSTRUCTIONS TO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSURE THAT REIMBURSEMENT IS LIMITED TO THE ACTUAL EXPENSES OF TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY-OWNED AUTOMOBILE (GASOLINE, OIL, ETC.). SEE 15 COMP. GEN. 206; 21 ID. 610; 23 ID. 875, 877; 40 ID. 221, 222; ID. 226, 230. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT IN THE CASES NOW BEFORE US MILEAGE HAS ONLY BEEN CLAIMED IN CERTAIN INSTANCES BETWEEN AIRPORT TERMINALS AND RESIDENCES. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, AND HAVING REGARD FOR THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED DO NOT EXCEED TAXI FARES WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD BE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 3.1 OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, WE WILL NOT OBJECT TO PAYMENT THEREOF.