B-149898, NOV. 20, 1962
Highlights
YOU REQUESTED OUR DECISION WHETHER YOU ARE REQUIRED TO COLLECT FROM MR. DAYHOFF DEDUCTED WHAT HE BELIEVED WAS REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH JURY SERVICE. PAY AND MILEAGE FOR JURY SERVICE IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND ARE NOT UNIFORM BUT ARE PRESCRIBED ON A COUNTY-TO-COUNTY BASIS IN ARTICLE 51. TO WHICH YOU REFER WAS CONCERNED WITH AN EMPLOYEE WHO RECEIVED JURY PAY IN ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY UNDER THE QUOTED PROVISION PRIOR TO THE ADDITION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY BY THE 1959 ACT. IN THAT DECISION WE HELD THAT EVIDENCE HAD NOT BEEN PRESENTED TO SHOW THAT A PART OF THE JURY FEE PAID IN ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY WAS INTENDED TO COVER TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES.
B-149898, NOV. 20, 1962
TO MR. H. E. CONN, AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT:
ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1962, YOU REQUESTED OUR DECISION WHETHER YOU ARE REQUIRED TO COLLECT FROM MR. E. L. DAYHOFF, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, THE $56 HE WITHHELD WHEN HE REIMBURSED THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PAY HE RECEIVED FOR JURY SERVICE PERFORMED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, BETWEEN MARCH 20 AND MAY 11, 1962.
MR. DAYHOFF SERVED AS A JUROR FOR 28 DAYS DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION AND RECEIVED PAY FOR SUCH SERVICE AT THE RATE OF $10 PER DAY. BEFORE REMITTING SUCH JURY PAY ($280) TO THE GOVERNMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1940, CH. 446, 54 STAT. 689, 5 U.S.C. 30N-30P, MR. DAYHOFF DEDUCTED WHAT HE BELIEVED WAS REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH JURY SERVICE. HE COMPUTED SUCH DEDUCTION AT THE RATE OF 10 CENTS PER MILE FOR THE ROUND TRIP OF 20 MILES BETWEEN HIS HOME AT 712 EASLEY STREET, SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND, AND THE COURTHOUSE IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, ON EACH DAY OF JURY SERVICE, OR A TOTAL OF $56.
PAY AND MILEAGE FOR JURY SERVICE IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND ARE NOT UNIFORM BUT ARE PRESCRIBED ON A COUNTY-TO-COUNTY BASIS IN ARTICLE 51, SECTION 25, OF THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND. CHAPTER 179 OF THE ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND FOR 1959, AMENDED THAT SECTION TO ADD MONTGOMERY COUNTY TO THE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY. THE PERTINENT PART OF SECTION 25, ARTICLE 51, NOW READS:
"* * * IN ANNE ARUNDEL AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEN DOLLARS PER DAY, AND NO ENTIRE ALLOWANCE SHALL BE GIVEN EITHER FOR MILEAGE OR OVERTIME IN ANNE ARUNDEL AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES; * * *.'
OUR DECISION OF JULY 29, 1958, B-136319, TO WHICH YOU REFER WAS CONCERNED WITH AN EMPLOYEE WHO RECEIVED JURY PAY IN ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY UNDER THE QUOTED PROVISION PRIOR TO THE ADDITION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY BY THE 1959 ACT. IN THAT DECISION WE HELD THAT EVIDENCE HAD NOT BEEN PRESENTED TO SHOW THAT A PART OF THE JURY FEE PAID IN ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY WAS INTENDED TO COVER TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES.
ON OCTOBER 39, 1962, WE ASKED THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY FOR A STATEMENT TO CORROBORATE THE CONTENTION OF MR. DAYHOFF THAT A PART OF THE JURY FEE PAID BY THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT IS REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION. HIS REPLY WHICH WE RECEIVED ON NOVEMBER 13 DID NOT FURNISH ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION IN THAT REGARD. THEREFORE, SINCE NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO SHOW THAT A PART OF THE PAY PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE 51, SECTION 25, IS SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO COVER TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES, AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER SUCH EVIDENCE WE MUST FOLLOW OUR PRIOR DECISIONS AND REQUIRE THE FULL JURY PAY TO BE REMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT. SEE B-136319, SUPRA, AND DECISIONS CITED THEREIN.
TO SUMMARIZE, MR. DAYHOFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO RETAIN ANY PART OF THE JURY PAY HE RECEIVED FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY AND YOU SHOULD COLLECT THE $56 WITHHELD BY HIM FROM SUCH PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES.