B-119907, JULY 6, 1954, 34 COMP. GEN. 5

B-119907, JULY 6, 1954, 34 COMP. GEN. 5

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - INSPECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT ALLOWANCES FOR THE USE OF PRIVATELY-OWNED AUTOMOBILES INASMUCH AS THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND THE DEPUTY CHIEF IN CHARGE OF TRAFFIC, ARE BASICALLY INSPECTORS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, THEY MAY BE PAID THE MONTHLY ALLOWANCE FOR THE USE OF PRIVATELY-OWNED AUTOMOBILES AS AUTHORIZED BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATION ACT OF JULY 31, 1953, FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF INSPECTORS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL WEITZEL TO A. R. PILKERTON, GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, JULY 6, 1954:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 30, 1954, REQUESTING DECISION WHETHER YOU MAY CERTIFY FOR PAYMENT TWO VOUCHERS THEREWITH ENCLOSED PROPOSING PAYMENTS TO HOWARD V. COVELL, DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND JOHN J. AGNEW, DEPUTY CHIEF IN CHARGE OF TRAFFIC, OF MONTHLY ALLOWANCES OF $40 EACH FOR THE USE OF THEIR PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILES. THE VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF THE FIRST-NAMED OFFICER COVERS NINE MONTHS' ALLOWANCE, TOTALING $360, AND THE VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF THE SECOND-NAMED OFFICER COVERS SEVEN AND FRACTION MONTHS' ALLOWANCE, TOTALING $305.53. YOU ENCLOSED COPIES OF THE COMMISSIONERS' ORDERS AUTHORIZING THE ALLOWANCES TO THESE TWO OFFICERS IN THE CASE OF DEPUTY CHIEF COVELL, BEGINNING DECEMBER 16, 1951, AND IN THE CASE OF DEPUTY CHIEF AGNEW, BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1952. YOU STATE THAT THESE TWO OFFICERS WERE MADE DEPUTY CHIEFS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC LAW 74, 83D CONGRESS, APPROVED JUNE 20, 1953, 67 STAT. 72, ESTABLISHING AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE POSITIONS OF DEPUTY CHIEFS AND INSPECTORS AT PRESCRIBED SALARIES.

THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE METROPOLITAN POLICE FOR 1954, FOUND IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATION ACT OF JULY 31, 1953, 67 STAT. 282, PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:

FOR EXPENSES NECESSARY FOR THE METROPOLITAN POLICE, INCLUDING PAY AND ALLOWANCES; THE INSPECTOR IN CHARGE OF THE TRAFFIC DIVISION WITH THE RANK AND PAY OF DEPUTY CHIEF; ONE CAPTAIN WHO SHALL BE ASSIGNED TO THE TRAFFIC DIVISION WITH THE RANK AND PAY OF INSPECTOR; ONE INSPECTOR WHO SHALL BE PROPERTY CLERK; * * * ALLOWANCES FOR PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILES USED BY INSPECTORS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES AT $480 PER ANNUM FOR EACH AUTOMOBILE * * *.

THE CHANGE IN THE ABOVE LANGUAGE OVER THAT IN THE 1953 APPROPRIATION IS EXPLAINED IN SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT 628, AT PAGE 6, AS FOLLOWS:

* * * LANGUAGE HAS ALSO BEEN ADDED TO THE HOUSE BILL TO INCREASE THE RANK AND PAY OF THE INSPECTOR IN CHARGE OF THE TRAFFIC DIVISION TO DEPUTY CHIEF, ALSO ONE CAPTAIN ASSIGNED TO THE TRAFFIC DIVISION TO THE RANK AND PAY OF INSPECTOR, AS IT WAS THE FEELING OF THE COMMITTEE THAT MANY TECHNICAL AND DIVERSIFIED PROBLEMS NOW CONFRONT THIS HIGHLY IMPORTANT DIVISION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THAT ADDITIONAL RANK AND PAY SHOULD BE GRANTED THESE RESPONSIBLE HEADS.

YOU ALSO STATE IN YOUR SUBMISSION THAT THE BUDGET PROVIDES FOR ONLY THREE SUCH ANNUAL ALLOWANCES, ONE OF WHICH IS BEING PAID PRESENTLY TO INSPECTOR WILLIAM J. LIVERMAN, AND IN THAT CONNECTION IT IS NOTED THAT TITLE 4, SECTION 108 (A) OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE, 1951 EDITION, LIMITS SUCH ALLOWANCES TO NOT MORE THAN THREE INSPECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.

FROM THE FOREGOING STATUTORY PROVISIONS IT IS CLEAR THAT PAYMENT OF THE AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE IS AUTHORIZED ONLY FOR INSPECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND IS LIMITED TO THREE SUCH OFFICERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE TWO OFFICERS HERE INVOLVED ARE ENTITLED TO SUCH ALLOWANCE ONLY IF THEY MAY BE CONSIDERED AS INSPECTORS OF THE DEPARTMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THEY NOW HOLD THE TITLE OF "DEPUTY CHIEF.' WHILE YOUR LETTER CONTAINS NO INFORMATION RESPECTING THE POSITIONS HELD BY THE OFFICERS PRIOR TO THEIR DESIGNATION AS "DEPUTY CHIEF," IT IS NOTED THAT THE 1954 APPROPRIATION PROVISION QUOTED ABOVE SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO "THE INSPECTOR IN CHARGE OF THE TRAFFIC DIVISION WITH THE RANK AND PAY OF "DEPUTY CHIEF.' THUS IT APPEARS THAT MR. AGNEW IS AN INSPECTOR. ALSO, WITH RESPECT TO MR. COVELL IT IS NOTED THAT TITLE 4, SECTION 106 OF THE D.C. CODE, PROVIDES FOR "ONE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT WITH RANK OF INSPECTOR.' WHILE SECTION 4 OF THE REORGANIZATION ORDER NO. 7, AS QUOTED IN THE OPINION OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL ENCLOSED WITH YOUR SUBMISSION, CHANGED THE TITLE OF THAT POSITION TO DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND SUCH TITLE WAS CARRIED FORWARD IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICE AND FIREMEN'S SALARY ACT OF 1953, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT EITHER ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSIONERS OR OF THE CONGRESS TO REPEAL TITLE 4, SECTION 106 OF THE D.C. CODE OR TO ABOLISH THE POSITIONS OF ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT APPEARS THAT, IRRESPECTIVE TO THEIR PRESENT TITLE AS "DEPUTY IEF," THE TWO OFFICERS BASICALLY ARE INSPECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE AND THEREFORE THEY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCES WHICH HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMISSIONERS' ORDERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE VOUCHERS MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT, IF OTHERWISE CORRECT.