Let Them Drink Cola!
By Ralph Smith
Thursday, March 30, 2006
In one case at least, the answer is "yes" because Uncle Sam will not pick up the tab.
Most readers have never heard of Clarence Maddox. His job does not put him in the headlines of newspapers around the country and he probably works hard and diligently as federal employees do throughout the government.
If you have been a client for the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, you may have seen his name though. He is the Clerk of Court for this organization.
He is also the certifying and disbursing officer for the court. Apparently there is a heavy workload that goes along with this and his agency recognizes the amount of work to be done.
Nevertheless, his job cost him $485.60 because he bought bottled water for employees of the Fort Pierce Division Courthouse.
When Mr. Maddox was told that the purchase of the water for employees was not proper, he stopped buying it. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts asked GAO to relieve Mr. Maddox of personal liability for the water purchased under his direction and authority. There were 11 payments totaling $485.60 at issue.
Bottled drinking water for employees is a personal expense. In effect, appropriated funds may not be used to purchase bottled drinking water for employees unless there is a necessity for doing so.
What is a necessity? It doesn't mean that employees have to drink water. Rather, it would have to be something unusual such as the drinking water normally available is contaminated and no other water is available.
In this instance, Mr. Maddox referred to “ongoing concerns about environmental issues in the Courthouse, which has had ongoing sewer and plumbing problems.” That, presumably, could have contaminated the water. The problem was, no one tested the water to see if it was safe or not.
The result was that there was no question as far as GAO was concerned about the propriety of purchasing drinking water for employees--buying drinking water for federal employees with federal funds is not authorized.
On the other hand, drinking water can be purchased for jurors in the courthouse and these purchases are made routinely.
But, since payments for that water are made from separate accounts, the GAO concluded that a reasonable examination of the purchase documents would show that the water was not for jurors--but for the federal employees working there.
And, concluded the GAO, heavy workload does not excuse the incorrect expenditure.
"Mr. Maddox should have been aware that he was certifying payments for employee bottled water based on the information detailed on the vouchers themselves, which could have been discovered through careful examination of the vouchers. Mr. Maddox remains liable for the 11 improper payments which have not been settled by operation of law, in the amount of $485.60."
In short, GAO denies "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."
© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent of FedSmith Inc.
|
Readers' Comments
Posted: June 19, 2006 10:51 AM
Posted: June 3, 2006 3:34 PM
Posted: April 24, 2006 2:09 PM
View All Comments »