JULY 23, 1923, 3 COMP. GEN. 43

JULY 23, 1923, 3 COMP. GEN. 43

SUBSISTENCE, PER DIEM IN LIEU OF - NATIONAL-BANK EXAMINERS NATIONAL-BANK EXAMINERS ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT WITH SALARIES AND EXPENSES PAYABLE FROM PUBLIC FUNDS ARISING FROM THE ASSESSMENTS ON BANKS AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND IT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF THE EXPENDITURE OF SUCH FUNDS. PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE MAY NOT BE PAID NATIONAL-BANK EXAMINERS FOR DAYS SPENT AT HOME OR AT STOP-OVERS EN ROUTE AT WHICH NO DUTY WAS REQUIRED OR PERFORMED OTHER THAN WRITING UP REPORTS, AND ANY ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY PURPORTING TO AUTHORIZE PER DIEM ALLOWANCES AT SUCH TIMES IS CONTRARY TO THE ACTS OF APRIL 6, 1914, 38 STAT., 318, AND AUGUST 1, 1914, 38 STAT., 3680, AND UNAUTHORIZED.

ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL GINN TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, JULY 23, 1923:

I HAVE YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 11, 1923, INCLOSING A LETTER OF JUNE 8, 1923, TO YOU FROM THE DEPUTY COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY REGARDING A DISALLOWANCE OF $12 IN VOUCHERS SUBMITTED BY EXAMINER ROBERT E. POWER, NOS. 338, FOR $4, AND 352, FOR $8, CREDIT FOR WHICH WAS DENIED IN THE ACCOUNT OF J. L. SUMMERS, DISBURSING CLERK OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, MARCH 20, 1923, SETTLEMENT T-13572, AND YOU REQUEST REVIEW OF SAID SETTLEMENT.

THE PER DIEM ITEMS IN QUESTION WERE AS FOLLOWS:

R. E. POWER, A NATIONAL-BANK EXAMINER, WHOSE HEADQUARTERS WERE CHICAGO, ILL., ARRIVED AT MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., SATURDAY, AUGUST 26, 1922, AT 1 P.M. AFTER FINISHING HIS WORK AT ST. CLOUD, MINN., IT NOT APPEARING AT WHAT TIME HIS DUTIES AT ST. CLOUD WERE CONCLUDED. VOUCHER NO. 352, AUGUST, 1922, CHRONICLES AN ARRIVAL AT MINNEAPOLIS 1 P.M. AUGUST 26, AND THE 27TH IS SIMPLY STATED AS "SUNDAY" WITHOUT QUALIFYING AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS A REMAINING IN MINNEAPOLIS OR NOT. THE DATES OF AUGUST 28 TO 31 ARE REPRESENTED AS ON APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE. VOUCHER 338, SEPTEMBER, 1922, REPORTS SEPTEMBER 1 AND 2, LEAVE OF ABSENCE SEPTEMBER 3, SUNDAY, AND SEPTEMBER 4, LABOR DAY, ON WHICH LATTER DATE DEPARTURE IS REPORTED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY RAILROAD FROM MINNEAPOLIS TO CHICAGO WHERE ARRIVAL IS REPORTED SEPTEMBER 5, AT 7 A.M.

PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE WAS CHARGED FOR AUGUST 26 AND SUNDAY, AUGUST 27, AND SEPTEMBER 3 AND 4, OF WHICH THERE WAS ALLOWED PER DIEM FOR AUGUST 26, AND DISALLOWED FOR THE OTHER DATES FOR THE REASON THAT AN EMPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES UNLESS HE IS AWAY FROM HIS REGULAR STATION AND PERFORMING OFFICIAL DUTY UNDER PROPER AUTHORITY, AND THIS EMPLOYEE IS NOT SHOWN AS HAVING PERFORMED ANY OFFICIAL BUSINESS IN MINNEAPOLIS THE DAY HE ARRIVED NOR AT ANY TIME BEFORE HIS DEPARTURE FOR HIS HEADQUARTERS, CHICAGO, IN THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 4, AT THE EXPIRATION OF HIS LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

UNDER DATE OF APRIL 25, 1923, THE DEPUTY COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY STATES:

YOUR ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO VOUCHER WHICH SHOWS EXAMINER POWER'SHOME AS ANOTHER CITY AND THAT HE ARRIVED IN MINNEAPOLIS AT 1 P.M. AUGUST 26, SATURDAY. HE IS ENTITLED TO FULL PER DIEM FOR THAT DATE AND ALSO THE FOLLOWING DAY, SUNDAY, AS HE WAS STILL IN AN OFFICIAL STATUS AT PLACE OF ARRIVAL AND HIS LEAVE DID NOT BEGIN UNTIL MONDAY. THE SAME IS TRUE OF SEPTEMBER 3 AND 4, AS HIS LEAVE TERMINATED SEPTEMBER 2, AND HIS VOUCHER SHOWS THAT ON THE 3D AND 4TH HE WAS IN MINNEAPOLIS, WHICH IS NEITHER HIS HOME NOR HEADQUARTERS.

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS OFFICE DOES NOT SEE THE NECESSITY FOR REQUESTING EXAMINER POWER TO MAKE ANY EXPLANATION OF CHARGES WHICH HE IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE BY TRAVEL REGULATIONS.

IN CONNECTION WITH THIS LAST PARAGRAPH THERE IS QUOTED EXCERPTS FROM A LETTER TO THIS OFFICE FROM THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY DATED APRIL 2, 1923, STATING:

THE NECESSITIES OF THE SERVICE REQUIRE THAT ALL EXAMINERS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO TRAVEL AT LARGE IN THEIR DISTRICTS, AND UNLESS THIS IS DONE THE EXAMINATION OF NATIONAL BANKS WILL BE MOST SERIOUSLY HAMPERED IF NOT RENDERED OF NO AVAIL. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT EXPLANATIONS ARE NECESSARY COVERING THIS POINT, AS THE EXAMINERS ARE UNDER INSTRUCTIONS FROM THIS OFFICE, THEIR VOUCHERS ARE CHECKED BY THE CHIEF EXAMINER AS WELL AS THIS OFFICE, AND WHEN THE TRAVEL IS ALLOWED IT IS NOT BELIEVED THAT IT SHOULD BE QUESTIONED FURTHER. FURTHERMORE, THE TRAVEL IS NOT AN EXPENSE TO THE UNITED STATES, AS YOU STATE, BEING ENTIRELY REIMBURSED BY THE BANKS EXAMINED, AS PROVIDED BY LAW.

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE EXPLANATION, IT IS REQUESTED THAT SUSPENSIONS OF ALL OF THE AMOUNTS REFERRED TO BE REMOVED AND THAT QUESTIONS OF THIS NATURE BE NOT RAISED IN FUTURE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCOUNTS OF AN EXAMINER OR ASSISTANT.

THE STATEMENTS QUOTED PLACE IN ISSUE THE JURISDICTION OF THIS OFFICE TO QUESTION THE TRAVEL EXPENDITURES OF NATIONAL BANK EXAMINERS, AND APPARENTLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRAVEL IS NOT AN EXPENSE TO THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE ENTIRELY REIMBURSED BY THE BANKS.

THE NATIONAL BANK EXAMINERS ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, WITH SALARIES AND EXPENSES PAYABLE FROM PUBLIC FUNDS ARISING FROM THE THE ASSESSMENTS ON BANKS AUTHORIZED BY LAW, AND THERE NEED NOW BE NO QUESTION OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF THE EXPENDITURES THEREOF. SEE 22 COMP. DEC., 477.

THE EXAMINER APPARENTLY FINISHED HIS DUTIES AT ST. CLOUD AND DEPARTED UPON THE FIRST LEG OF THE JOURNEY TO HIS HEADQUARTERS AT CHICAGO, BUT UPON ARRIVAL AT MINNEAPOLIS, SATURDAY, AUGUST 26, LEAVE WAS GRANTED, EFFECTIVE FROM MONDAY TO AND INCLUDING SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 2. WHILE IT IS NOT SO STATED, YET IT APPEARS FROM THE ARRIVAL AT CHICAGO AT 7 A.M. SEPTEMBER 5 THAT THE SECOND LEG OF THE JOURNEY WAS BEGUN THE NIGHT OF SEPTEMBER 4. THE DATES INCLUSIVE FROM AUGUST 28 TO SEPTEMBER 2, BEING ON LEAVE, ARE NOT INVOLVED, BUT IT IS CLAIMED THAT FOR THE OTHER DATES OF AUGUST 27 AND SEPTEMBER 3 AND 4 SUBSISTENCE IS DUE, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE OF A TRAVEL STATUS, AND THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS, WAS THERE SUCH A TRAVEL STATUS AS WOULD ENTITLE TO SUBSISTENCE?

THE DEPUTY COMPTROLLER, IN THE LETTER UNDER DATE OF JUNE 8, 1923, STATES:

THIS OFFICE HAS FULLY INVESTIGATED THIS MATTER, AND IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT EXAMINER POWER DID NOT ANTICIPATE HIS LEAVE AND ONLY TOOK THE LEAVE WHICH HE WAS GRANTED FROM THE MORNING OF THE 28TH OF AUGUST TO THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 2, WHICH LEAVE WAS CAUSED BY THE ILLNESS OF HIS MOTHER. EXAMINER POWER'S HEADQUARTERS WERE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, AND HE WAS IN MINNEAPOLIS IN ORDER TO HELP BRING UP THE WORK IN THAT DISTRICT. MINNEAPOLIS IS THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE NINTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT, IT WAS NATURAL THAT AN EXAMINER WHO WAS IN THAT DISTRICT ON DETAIL WOULD COME INTO MINNEAPOLIS AT THE END OF THE WEEK IN ORDER TO WRITE UP HIS REPORTS AND PERFORM ANY OTHER OFFICIAL BUSINESS THAT HE MAY HAVE, ALSO TO GET DIRECTIONS FROM THE CHIEF EXAMINER STATIONED AT THIS POINT FOR WORK THE FOLLOWING WEEK.

IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF SEPTEMBER 3 AND 4 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE: "HE IS NOT SHOWN AS HAVING PERFORMED ANY OFFICIAL BUSINESS IN MINNEAPOLIS THE DAY HE ARRIVED AFTER 1 P.M. ON SATURDAY NOR AT ANY TIME BEFORE DEPARTURE FOR HIS HEADQUARTERS (CHICAGO) IN THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 4TH, AT THE EXPIRATION OF HIS LEAVE OF ABSENCE.' IN THIS STATEMENT THEY ARE EVIDENTLY MISTAKEN, AS THE EXAMINER'S LEAVE BEGAN MONDAY, AUGUST 28, AND EXPIRED AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS SEPTEMBER 2, AND NOT AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS SEPTEMBER 4, AND HE WAS THEREFORE AVAILABLE FOR DUTY AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY AFTER THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS SEPTEMBER 2, WHICH STATEMENT IS BORNE OUT BY THE FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH SEPTEMBER 4 WAS A HOLIDAY HE DEPARTED FOR CHICAGO AT THAT TIME. AS TO AUGUST 27, WHICH WAS ALSO A SUNDAY, NO BANK COULD BE EXAMINED. THE EXAMINER STATES THAT PER DIEM FOR SEPTEMBER 3 AND 4 WAS CHARGED IN GOOD FAITH AND THAT HAD HE BEEN WORKING THE PREVIOUS WEEK HE WOULD ORDINARILY NOT HAVE WORKED ON SUNDAY AND LABOR DAY AND, AS HE WAS AWAY FROM HIS HEADQUARTERS, WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO THESE DAYS, AS NO WORK COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN BANKS, AND ALSO THAT THIS LEAVE WAS IN NO SENSE A VACATION NOR PLANNED IN ADVANCE AND WAS OCCASIONED BY THE SUDDEN ILLNESS OF HIS MOTHER, WHO HAD TO UNDERGO A MAJOR OPERATION, WHICH REQUIRED HIS PRESENCE.

THESE COMBINED STATEMENTS OF THE DEPUTY COMPTROLLER AND THE EXAMINER SHOW CONCLUSIVELY THAT FOR THE DATES OF AUGUST 27 AND SEPTEMBER 3 AND 4 THE EXAMINER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN A TRAVEL STATUS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT AS THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS WAS DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS THAT IT WAS BUT NATURAL THAT THE EXAMINER SHOULD REPORT THERE AND WRITE UP REPORTS AND PERFORM ANY OTHER OFFICIAL BUSINESS AND GET DIRECTIONS FROM THE CHIEF EXAMINER; BUT IT IS STATED THAT NO WORK COULD BE DONE THOSE DAYS, BECAUSE THE BANKS WERE CLOSED, AND AS TO REPORTS, THEY MAY BE WRITTEN ANYWHERE, AND A STOPPING OFF AND REMAINING AT A PLACE FOR SUCH PURPOSE IS NOT A NECESSARY INCIDENT OF TRAVEL UPON PUBLIC BUSINESS AS WOULD ENTITLE TO TRAVEL SUBSISTENCE.

THE ACTS AUTHORIZING TRAVEL ALLOWANCE, ACT APRIL 6, 1914, 38 STAT., 318, AND AUGUST 1, 1914, 38 STAT., 680, SEC. 13, PROVIDE SUCH ALLOWANCES WHEN ENGAGED IN FIELD WORK OR TRAVELING ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS.

THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT BUSINESS WAS TRANSACTED ON SUNDAY, AUGUST 27, AND IT IS ASSUMED NONE COULD BE; AND CONSIDERING THE CONDITION OF HIS PARENT, IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE EXAMINER WAS AT HIS HOME THAT DAY. IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO SUBSISTENCE TERMINATES UPON ARRIVAL AT THE HOME, AS THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH REIMBURSEMENT THEN NATURALLY CEASED; THEREFORE NO PER DIEM IS DUE FOR AUGUST 27. 27 COMP. DEC., 982.

A TRAVEL STATUS DOES NOT OCCUR SPONTANEOUSLY AT A GIVEN DATE; IT ARISES INCIDENT TO THE INITIATION OF ACTUAL TRAVEL, AND UNTIL THERE WAS AN ACTUAL STARTING UPON TRAVEL THE NIGHT OF SEPTEMBER 4 THERE COULD BE INCURRED NO EXPENSES OF TRAVEL, AND CONSEQUENTLY NO GROUND FOR REIMBURSEMENT. THE MERE HOLDING OF SELF READY FOR DUTY AT HOME DOES NOT INITIATE A TRAVEL STATUS. THE IDEA AND OBJECT OF THE REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSE IS TO MAKE AN EMPLOYEE WHOLE AS TO ANY ADDITIONAL EXPENSE PUT TO THROUGH TRAVEL UPON THE PUBLIC BUSINESS, AND WHERE THERE ARE NO SUCH EXPENSES, OR THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT PRESUMPTIVE OF ANY, A REIMBURSABLE RIGHT DOES NOT EXIST. CONSEQUENTLY IT MUST BE HELD THAT PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE AS A TRAVEL ALLOWANCE IS NOT DUE FOR SEPTEMBER 3 AND 4. 2 COMP. GEN., 474.

IT IS NECESSARY IN THIS CONNECTION TO TAKE NOTICE OF THE STATEMENT OF THE DEPUTY COMPTROLLER OF FEBRUARY 5, 1923, AS FOLLOWS:

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ALLOWS ITS EXAMINERS TO RETURN TO THEIR HEADQUARTERS ONCE A WEEK AND THAT IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE TO PERMIT THEM TO VISIT THEIR HOMES INSTEAD OF HEADQUARTERS, PROVIDED THE COST OF TRAVEL DOES NOT EXCEED THE COST TO HEADQUARTERS.

IT APPEARS FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE VOUCHER IN QUESTION THAT MR. NORTHCUTT TRAVELED A GREATER DISTANCE THAN TO HIS HEADQUARTERS, BUT HAVING IN MIND THE RULING OF THIS OFFICE CHARGED ONLY AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST HIM TO VISIT HIS HEADQUARTERS. AS THE TRAVEL CONFORMS TO THE POLICY OF THE ADMINISTRATION IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE SUSPENSION BE LIFTED.

THE ACTS CITED SUPRA AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF EXPENSES WHILE TRAVELING ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS "ONLY FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES," AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY IS NOT JUSTIFIED.

UPON REVIEW THE DISALLOWANCES APPEAR PROPER AND THE SETTLEMENT IS SUSTAINED.