ER Spec pretending to be an accountant DoD Mon Feb 5, 2007 9:23 AM
What is the harm to the Government if an employee uses their Travel card to rack up oodles of charges as long as the employee timely pays the bill?
Re: Travel Card
ER Spec civilian agency Mon Feb 5, 2007 9:31 AM
I don't pretend to speak for the legal office or for the travel people. However, when an employee receives the government travel card, he signs a statement that the card is not to be use for any personal charges. That probably includes massages, clothes or tickets to rock concerts. The "situational ethics" referred to in the article is certainly at play here. We may not know the reason for the restriction but, because we don't like it, we should be able to ignore it and use our own ethical standards. Our signature and obligation to live to these obligations are obviously meaningless in the eyes of some.
Re: Travel Card
Lead Staff Accountant DFAS Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:26 AM
This is really a response to a response. Don’t confuse following the regs with ethics, or disobeying them with unethical behavior. The “abuse” may not be unethical, but rather the restrictions may be unethical. I consider that the agreement was signed under duress. I was told, in so many words, that travel is part of my job, and I could get the card or use my own money. The travel is for government purposes, and the expenses are government expenses, but we must be responsible for the credit card bills. This makes us responsible for the government’s expenses until the travel office can finish processing our claims. I myself have been stuck with the tab for the government when the travel office screwed up the paperwork. The requirement for personal responsibility for government charges is itself potentially a violation of appropriations law. If I am going to have to assume responsibility for paying the credit card bill, then I expect to behave as if it is my card.
Re: Travel Card
Hard Worker DOD Tue Feb 6, 2007 12:23 PM
That's just the problem - people rack up oodles of charges and don't pay their bill IN FULL on the DATE DUE.
Re: Travel Card
Analyst USDA Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:51 PM
The card is to be used for government business only because it is taxpayer money being spent. To purchase personal items on the card shows, for the record, that taxpayer money can be spent on massages, clothes, etc. Even if you pay the bill for the "personal" purchases, it does not look right. Use your own personal card for your personal purchases, not the government card. Appearances count.
Re: Travel Card
CO DOL Wed May 23, 2007 8:21 AM
Taxpayer's Money? How do you figure? I am the one paying the bill when gov doesn't pay it on time. The bill comes in my name, not Uncle Sam! (which I pay regardless of having received payment from agency) so how do you figure it is taxpayer monies.
Ethics and Travel Cards
Mgmt Analyst DoD Mon Feb 5, 2007 9:28 AM
It's too bad when articles are published about travel card abuse, that it isn't told that even when an Agency tries to punish the offendor, MSPB won't back up the Agency. If such information received as wide-spread attention as the offense, I dare say public outcry would see to it that Agencies were allowed to fire offenders. Come on, folks! If individuals cannot be ethical, they need to quit feeding at the public trough. This is OUR tax dollars at work.
Credit card abuse
Electronics Technician Army Mon Feb 5, 2007 9:46 AM
Yes, ethical standards do come from the top. MSPB is not the top. Congress and the political appointees in the Executive branch are. Neither have shown high ethical standards over the years, especially Congress. Worse, Congress passes laws to hold Executive branch employees (as in hired, not appointed) to high standards, but exempts itself. That's called hypocrisy.
For example, the vast majority of purchase card holders are honest, but are treated like the few crooks who make headlines. The single-purchase spending limit has never been increased, so the purchase card will soon be useless, thanks to inflation and Congress's refusal to raise it. Our esteemed elected officials don't have the guts to kill the program, but they'll let it die by attrition.
No wonder Congressional ethics is considered an oxymoron.
Re: Credit card abuse
retired fed employee DOD Mon Feb 5, 2007 12:51 PM
Very well said. After keeping abreast of different federal issues, I have seen the decline of ethics that I never thought would happen. Just call me disenchanted. No one is held accountable for their actions. Will they ever be held accountable??
Credit card abuse not for everyone
Facilities Distribution Specialist DOD Navy Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:01 AM
As a Federal Employee that had been authorized a Government credit card for travel purposes, I fully uderstood that it's use was not authorized for things other than official government business. I never used it for any other purpose as a sense of duty and honesty.
On the other side of the coin, a Federal employee that does not have a credit card will only receive 70% of his travel expenses up-front. Before I had gotten my credit card, I would have to choose between eating or staying in a decent hotel. The Federal government is not the quickest player when it comes to reimbursement of travel expenses. Often my personal credit card bill would come due before I received my reimbursement. After one incident where I paid my hotel bill in advance, I only had $35.00 to pay for meals, transportation to the training facility, and for tips. The training was for two weeks, I ran out of money in three days. I could not even pay for the gas for the rental car.3 months later, I was reimbursed.
Re: Credit card abuse not for everyone
Clerk VA Tue Feb 6, 2007 8:53 AM
I don't travel enough to get a travel card. The few times I've had to travel, I've had to go without eating so that I could pay for my hotel. I usually travel unexpectedly, so it is not my lack of planning. The whole travel card thing is ridiculous.
Re: Credit card abuse not for everyone
Admin Assistant DOD Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:28 AM
I agree with the VA clerk. Why force it on people and then have to police it? Let those who want to use their own card use it. Forcing someone with money problems to get yet another credit card only fuels the fire. If you can't get one on your own, then you can get the government one. Why does the government have to be in your personal business? Why be afraid that you'll use the wrong card and be reprimanded or fired? Let us use our own cards.
Travel Card
Retired Senior Manager Navy Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:04 AM
I've never understood all of the outrage over personal charges on the travel cards. The government gets a rebate based on the total charges made on the cards. Therefore it is benefiting from any such "misuse." Unlike "purchase" cards, all charges made on travel cards are the sole financial responsibility of the card holder. So the issue ought to be whether or not the card holder is paying the bill every month and not what they are charging. The management oversight energy saved could then been spent reviewing "purchase" card buys, which are subject to fraudulent use and are paid directly by the government.
Appeal to Fed Circuit - abuse of discretion
HR specialist USDA Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:07 AM
A surprisingly inaccurate decision by this Board. I would appeal to the Fed Circuit.
Mixing of personal and public business
Fisheries Biologist Forest Service Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:08 AM
On my government travel card, the bill comes to my home address, I write a check on my personal checking account to pay the bill, and I request re-imbursement from the government. The Government is already mixing personal and public finances here. Since the person in this story did not request re-imbursement for the "inappropriate" charges, there was no money stolen form the Government. She was temporarily using the governments "good name" to secure credit, but the Government also uses her checking account to temporarily pay it's bills. As I understand the story, she broke the rules, and so merited some punishment, but perhaps the original punsihment was too severe. I think it's a lousy system. Why not have the Government pay it's credit card bills directly, instead of using my checking account as an imtermediate.
Re: Mixing of personal and public business
Intelligence Specialist Dept of Army Mon Feb 5, 2007 11:26 AM
In our organization, as well as many other military organizations, we use a system called Defense Travel System (DTS). While it's not the greatest, and certainly not user friendly, it is still a better option for us when we travel. We are required to use the split disbursement option. That means DTS sends money to the credit card company for all charges appearing on our bill and then DTS sends the balance to us. We also have the option to have DTS send more money to the credit card company if we know there are other purchases that haven't shown up by the time reimbursement is made. This means we have to keep track of what we spend, but it makes it much nicer to not have to worry about a large bill. We usually get our reimbursement within 3-5 days to our checking accounts via EFT.
Ethics, credit cards and government leaders
Manager HUD Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:12 AM
It is difficult to see why it is such a big thing to buy something you need when detailed or traveling, and use your government travel card. It may be something not authorized in the regs, but it is your card, your responsibility, your credit report, etc. The government does not pay if you fail to do so. Then there is the issue (much improved these days) of SLOW reimbursement. It is hard to timely make payments when you don't get reimbursed for several months. There are ways around that, but it is still your responsibility even if you don't get timely reimbursed.
Then there is the issue of watching our elected officials in action. I work 40 hours a week. A congressperson works 2 or 2-1/2 days a week. I know they say they are doing their job the other 20+ hours, but it is hard to buy that when they are all running for re-election on OUR time. So, we use some of our sick leave for a mental health day? I want to see the congress put in full work days for our tax dollars.
Re: Ethics, credit cards and government leaders
ATSS FAA Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:17 PM
Why is it our resposibility if we don't get reimbursed?
You as a manager order the travel, tell us when where and how and then want us to pay the expenses out of our own funds until someone gets around to issue us a check.
What hogwash! I did not want this card, but was FORCED to take it. If it offical travel, why dosen't the government pay it like the purchase card?
Credit Cards
Revenue Agent Internal Revenue Service Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:24 AM
I agree that there is a major issue with unauthorized purchases on credit cards; but these are in fact not government credit cards. The employee is on the hook for them and the government does not guarantee the card. If you default it shows up on your credit rating. The federal government has no one to blame other than the fool who came up with the idea of issuing " govrnment creidt cards" to anyone traveling more than twice in a twelve month period.
If the government were out anymoney on this, I would whole heartedly supprt termination of these employees.
But What About the Grey Areas?
Lead Staff Accountant DFAS Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:37 AM
I once got counseled for travel card abuse. I was returning from travel and had to carry back a large amount of material associated with my job that I had accumulated. To do this, I stopped off at a store and bought a new suitcase. I put it on my travel card, but paid that part of the bill myself since I had kept it. I was later told that it was considered a personal item, and not suitable for the travel card. The suggestion was made that I should have withdrawn cash and purhased it that way, even though my approach saved the government the ATM fee. My supervisor had a hard time keeping a straight face while she explained to me that suitcases are not travel related.
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
ER Specialist fed agency Mon Feb 5, 2007 11:35 AM
Are you serious? You don't understand why LUGGAGE is considered a personal item...yes, it's travel related just like a toothbrush is, but it's still PERSONAL. No gray area here..you should have used either your own cash, or your own credit card. You didn't "save" the government an ATM fee, as the gov't doesn't pay ATM fees for personal withdrawals of cash. What you read into your supervisor's expression was clearly your imagination as there simply isn't any gray area here. You misused the card; however, certainly, the counseling you received was an appropriate response.
Yes, employees are ultimately responsible for paying the debts, but they are using the government's credit (not their own) to ascertain their purchases. Further, if they don't pay it the banks may write off the expenses which creates problems for the government's credibility.
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
Lead Staff Accountant DFAS Mon Feb 5, 2007 1:26 PM
1) The exigencies of travel required something to carry back the materials in. I opted for a suitcase that I would not have otherwise purchased. There may have been personal considerations as well, but each decision contains some element of personal baggage. If, while engaged in my job, I take an action that I would not otherwise take, then it is work related.
2) I did not put it on my own card because I did not have it. I do not use cards, except for travel, and did not bring mine because I had the government card. I did not expect any non-work related charges, and did not have any (See item 1 above).
3) When we use our cards in ATM’s the ATM charges a fee. We report it in block 18 of the DD 1351-2, include a copy of the slip, and get reimbursed for it.
4) My supervisor was a very intelligent lady who appreciated the incongruity.
5) I do not depend on government credit for a card. I can get one.
6) "If" I don't pay? If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
ER Specialist fed agency Mon Feb 5, 2007 2:31 PM
Your smugness doesn't dismiss the fact that you used the gov't card for a personal purchase. you had several options - 1. carry the stuff back yourself; 2., call your office and request authorization to mail the material back; 3. this is the "no-brainer" that many people would have thought of - take an empty bag with you in foresight. Lack of planning doesn't make what you did right. Your misuse isn't particularly serious, and didn't warrant anything other than a counseling, but your lack of understanding your responsibility is troublesome.
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
Lead Staff Accountant DFAS Mon Feb 5, 2007 3:39 PM
1) I did carry the stuff back myself. That's why I wanted the suitcase. OOPS! That's a mistake -- I didn't want it. As I said, I would not have otherwise purchased it.
2) I didn't need permission to mail or ship. That was not a viable option. It was after hours in a small town with no Pac Mail and I had to be on a flight first thing in the morning with no time to mail it.
3) I considered the paper bag. Didn't think it would be adequate.
If I am smug, it is because I am right. If I erred, it was in my original flip response to the article -- the seeming incongruity of a suitcase not being travel related was too good to pass up on. I didn't err in my actions. I didn't go shopping for a suitcase; I took the best solution in a situation without any good solutions, and it resulted in a rather silly technical violation.
Now, tell me something I've been wondering about. What's an ER Specialist?
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
Reformed Conservative DOD Tue Feb 6, 2007 7:33 AM
Lead Staff Accountant certainly is good at explaining which rules he will and will not follow, and why. Has he thought of running for President?
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
Lead Staff Accountant DFAS Tue Feb 6, 2007 8:14 AM
1) I never said I didn't follow the rules. I strongly disagree with the rule, and I think the rule itself has ethical problems, but the ethical problems of the rule does not create ethical problems for me, as say, a rule requiring me to run the gas at Treblinka would. I do follow the rule, though I disagree with it. This problem was not over following the rule, but over an interpretation of the rule. Is a suitcase, needed because of an exigency that arose WHILE ON TRAVEL a valid use of the travel card? Remember, I was told I could have drawn the funds and used cash with no problem. So is it appropriate to place restrictions on the card that are not on the funds themselves?
2) Considered it, but it's too much trouble. I'd rather be the guy that pulls the strings, like Richelieu. Or better than that, Vice President. Collect a fat paycheck to play golf and attend state funerals.
3) Does reformed conservative mean Libertarian?
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
Reformed Conservative DOD Tue Feb 6, 2007 9:37 AM
That was a very good response, Lead Staff Accountant. 10 points for you! :D
Nope, not Libertarian; I don't think Libertarianism is feasible in a group larger than about 10 people. Just another disaffected voter! There seem to be many voters like me--not conservative, not liberal, just disgusted with politics as usual--but few politicians seem interested in courting us.
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
ER Specialist Federal Agency Tue Feb 6, 2007 3:02 PM
An Employee Relations Specialist gives managers advice on responding to employees much like yourself who don't follow rules.
Just one question: Did your agency reimburse you for the luggage? If not, then it was PERSONAL! Case closed.
Victimless Crime
engineer air force Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:50 AM
I must admit that I may not really understand why this is not an excessive control issue as opposed to an ethics lapse as no taxpayer loses one red cent. I truly believe under the scales of justice applied by an impartial jury that this punishment should weigh excessive for what appears to be at best, giving every benefit of doubt to the accusers, a victimless crime.
situational ethics
HR Specialist interior Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:58 AM
The comments in response to the article seem to prove the author's point about "situational ethics". Some may not understand why the regulation exists. If the user does not understand it, or chooses not to understand it, or just doesn't care about the regulations, it is okay to do what you want and not worry about it.
Under this logic, each person apparently has the right to make his or her own decisions about what is right or wrong or which regulations are justified or which ones are not and to act accordingly.
When combined with the problems in hiring new employees, and our inability to hire the best people, we are headed for trouble. We hire less qualified people, create a culture of "doing your own thing" and then we will do investigations and issue reports bemoaning a situation where nothing of value gets done.
Re: situational ethics
Lead Staff Accountant DFAS Mon Feb 5, 2007 1:57 PM
Ah! But there seems to be a built in assumption on this point that following the regs is ethical. What if the regs themselves are not ethical? Would you pull the switch to drop the pellets at Auschwitz because the regs said to do it?* An extreme case, perhaps, but it is in the extremities that modes tollens** raises its ugly head. Our regs require us to accept responsability for governmental expenses until such time as the government can get around to reimbursing us for them. Is that ethical? Was it unethical for Ghandi to make salt? If not, then is it unethical for us to skirt the charge card regs?
*Actually, an experiment showed that a surprising number of people are willing to do simply horrible things if someone else agrees to take responsability for it.
**If P implies Q is true, and Q is false, then P must be false. In other words, if a premise leads to a false conclusion, then we must reject the premise, no matter how much sense it seemed to make at the time.
Re: situational ethics
Civilian Govt Mon Feb 5, 2007 2:58 PM
As a supervisor, I'm not sure I could trust someone in a fiduciary position if they did not feel following regulations was ethical. The travel regs are not unethical, and it is not your call whether or not they are.
By the way, what happened to the suitcase when you returned to work?
Re: situational ethics
Lead Staff Accountant DFAS Mon Feb 5, 2007 4:39 PM
I understand your hesitation. People who think regs are optional have a special talent for getting their supervisors into trouble. Luckily, I don’t think that following regs is unethical, but blindly following them can be. Also luckily, my supervisors trust my judgment on when to make the call enough to make me a lead accountant.
I see an ethical problem with travel cards on the part of the government. The government makes them our responsibility, then limits how we can use them. If the government wants the cards to be their cards, then they should take responsibility for them. This doesn’t mean that I abuse mine. The suitcase was a decision I made in a small town after normal business hours when I didn’t see any better choices.
I still have it. I didn’t want it, but didn’t think it would fly if I filed for reimbursement. If I had, it probably would have ended up at DRMO and I could have bought it back at auction for $2.
Re: situational ethics
Civilian Govt Tue Feb 6, 2007 1:46 PM
So, Lead, are you unethical or blind? You keep stepping all yourself trying to explain your way out of this. The answer is as plain as the suitcase in YOUR closet. It doesn't belong to the government, never did, and therefore, the government was correct in not reimbursing you for it to begin with. I think your supervisor was laughing because they couldn't believe you thought you'd get away with it. And stop with the "killing" analogies. They don't fit the situation, just like your suitcase.
Situational
Gov Worker DOD Mon Feb 5, 2007 11:34 AM
I wonder if your last comment refers to HR folks as well about "well qualified?"
Ethics, Credit Cards and Government Leaders
Web Developer/Analyst Army Mon Feb 5, 2007 12:08 PM
I've never uderstood what the issue is. The employee that the card is issued to is responsible for all charges placed on that card - not the Government. He/She gets the bill and must pay it. Everyone seems to try to compare it to the private sector. There is no comparison. In the private sector a company credit card is not issued to the employee - it is issued to the company, they get the bill and they are responsible for payment. Sometimes the employee is forwarded a copy of the charges as a courtesy but not always, unless there is some question or justification required.
Executive Situational Ethics
Retired Manager Social Security Administration Mon Feb 5, 2007 12:28 PM
How about when the executive of an Agence determines that the agency will improve its 'diversity'. It then promotes less qualified people of the correct demographics over more highly qualified people of the incorrect demographics. Does not the Agency show that merit is only a last consideration in promotion. Our Regional Commissioner has let it be known that she will promote the 'wrong' demographic person only if no choice is available.
Credit Card Usage
HR Director (Retired) Department of the Air Force Mon Feb 5, 2007 1:00 PM
The misuse of credit cards is not limited to Federal employees whether they be at the senior or lower levels. Just look at what is happening in the Dallas Independent School District which has found that its employees have been misusing their school credit cards to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Agencies need to reevulate to whom they issue credit cards and insure that those given these cards understand that their use is for official use only. Those misusing the card should first be given a warning and remedial training on their use but if the misuse continues they should be held accountable. The same accountability standard should be applied to all with credit cards. The employee's position should not be a factor. Don't do what Dallas is doing - prosecuting the secretaries and reassigning the principals. By the way, nothing is being done to those who determined at a secretaries with no official needs were given credit cards.
You owe us a follow-up story ...
General Engineer DoD, Dept of the Army Mon Feb 5, 2007 1:10 PM
I don't understand why you've jumped past the other ethics issue and commented only on the application of regulations to the credit charges.
The prerequisite issue here is that the Gov't makes the employee responsible for the card, requires them to use it for certain expenses (to ensure the Gov't getting the kick-back from the credit card company so some bean counter gets credit for so-called savings to the Gov't), and then picks our bones if we end up mixing Gov't and personal expenses even though we don't apply for reimbursement of personal expenses.
I had a supervisor REQUIRE me to place Gov't charges on my Gov't travel card so the Gov't gets the kick-back. I would prefer to use one of my own personal cards to avoid Gov't intrusion.
Bottom line: if you make me responsible for the card, let me handle it (if I put personal charges on it, I'll pay them...even though I avoid it so Big Brother does not get any more insight into my personal spending habits than necessary).
Situational ethics (gag)
HR specialist retired Mon Feb 5, 2007 1:57 PM
After reading the AJ's initial decision, and much as I, as a former ER specialist, would like to support management, I would not have encouraged removal in this case. But as to "situational ethics," the cards (charge, not credit, cards) are government property and are to be used solely for official business. However, the necessity of purchasing some items will be debatable. A suitcase to bring back course material? No. But using the card to box that material up and ship it back, definitely. The difference? Shipping costs are a one-shot deal, and only the government benefits. The suitcase can be reused by the employee. How does it look to taxpayers who will never know if the employee paid for it? Not good! It's the opinion of taxpayers that counts the most...
Re: Situational ethics (gag)
Lead Staff Accountant DFAS Mon Feb 5, 2007 5:08 PM
If the cards are government property, then why are we responsible for paying the bills on government property? When it comes to an issue of responsibility, the government doesn't act as if they are government property. And why shouldn't a suitcase be acceptable, depending on the circumstances? If the criterion is one of restricting benefit to the government, then should we punch out and go across the street to use the bathroom? We get far more benefit from a visit to the meditation locker than the government does. Granted, that's a silly example, but in silliness, as in wine, there is sometimes truth. The government was not charged for the suitcase, and the card was used in a situation that arrose on the road as a result of travel.
MSPB decision
anonymous Agriculture Mon Feb 5, 2007 2:54 PM
Perhaps there were other mitigating circumstances with respect to this employee (Douglas factor issues). We don't know the whole story.
Normally I would be outraged by misuse of a gov't card, but I am currently the victim of bullying and sexual harassment from my supervisor. It is clear that her lies have more credibility with management than my documentation and witness reports. It has destroyed my confidence in the fairness of our government.
Government MANDATED Travel Cards are a MESS!!!!!!
Manager BLM Mon Feb 5, 2007 4:57 PM
Previously I worked for 2 USDA agencies, and initially both issued Govt Travel CC's to anyone who traveled (overnight) twice a year or more, and EVERYONE, regardless how much (or little) they traveled on Govt business had a $25,000 credit limit! How much sense did that make? And apparently much wasn't done in the way of credit checks either. Requiring an employee to obtain a Govt Travel CC with a $25,000 credit limit, without looking at whether they handled credit responsibly was a recipe for disaster. It's like giving an alcoholic a bottle of their favorite flavor, and then telling them NOT to drink it!
With that approach, Govt agencies got what they asked for, a mess!!! I called the Bank that issued my USDA card and asked them to lower the credit limit to $3,000 and they said they couldn't do that, that I would have to work through agency channels to have that done. I ended up having to contact someone in my Agency's Washington DC office just to get my credit limit lowered!
Credit Card Agreements.
Manager DOT Mon Feb 5, 2007 7:45 PM
Most employees view personal charges on a government card as transparent for the most part but there have been defaults. Some employees have been irresponsible in use of the cards and have been unable to reimburse the credit card company and that is outside of the credit card company agreeement.
Several years ago employees were given cash travel advances to cover costs and credit cards have replaced them. Employees sign an agreement that they will use these cards for valid expenses only. If you disagree then you have the option of using your own credit card except in the case of purchasing airline tickets.
The voucher payment time has been vastly reduced and the delays in payment are mostly attributed to employees not submitting appropriate paperwork, not the system. Most managers and voucher processors are more than reasonable.
Credit cards are an excellent vehicle for covering employees expenses but they need to be used responsibly.
Re: Credit Card Agreements.
Manager BLM Tue Feb 6, 2007 1:47 PM
DOT policy may be "If you disagree then you have the option of using your own credit card except in the case of purchasing airline tickets", but both USDA and DOI REQUIRE that ALL hotel, car rental, and gas purchases while on official travel also be charged to the Govt Travel Card (GTC). USDA and DOI policy is that employees are "supposed" to use the GTC while in stravel status for all "official" travel expenses, except when they pay cash for smaller food purchases, cab fare, tolls, parking fees, etc. Apparently policy makers thought there would be millions coming back to the Govt in the form of "cash back" from GTC purchases. At one time frequent flyer miles earned from Govt purchased airfare belonged to the Govt, but now those miles belong to the employee. In my opinion GTC's should be "optional", not forced! If I want to "front" the money for my official travel, then file a voucher for reimbursement, why should the Govt care? If GTC's were optional I would NOT have one!!!!!!!!
Misuse of Credit Card
Retired Special Agent IRS Mon Feb 5, 2007 7:49 PM
There should be a way to bring larceny charges via local prosecutors for unauthorized use of a credit card. Especially if there is a pattern.
Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
Federal Officer DHS Mon Feb 5, 2007 9:16 PM
It seems to me that there are no tax payer dollars involved unless or until the government actually pays something. And since they don't, even in a default, where is the theft?
I was issued a government credit card when I detailed to the Olympics in 1996. I used it a couple of times in '97, '98 and '99 but have not traveled since then.
I get a new card every two years even though the one in my wallet right now has never been activated.
Re: Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
Civilian Govt Tue Feb 6, 2007 9:02 AM
How can you say there are no taxpayer dollars involved? Every employee, govt or contractor, connected with the govt travel card program is being paid by the taxpayer. So yes, the taxpayer is footing the bill. I just still don't understand what it is about "for official use only" that employees don't understand and so self-righteously simply choose to ignore.
Re: Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
Officer DHS Tue Feb 6, 2007 1:15 PM
Easy, credit extended by CitiBank isn't government funds. If you default, the "G" doesn't pay CitiBank, they go after you.
Interesting theory though, because I work for the government, it is taxpayer money. Careful with that one though, I know alot of government workers who are then STEALING government funds each and every day they show up at the office.
Re: Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
Civilian Govt Tue Feb 6, 2007 3:03 PM
DHS, yes, credit extended is not govt funding, but the all workers from the govt credit card employees, travel clerks, etc., who touch this program are being paid by the government. That's where I was coming from. So to say it's okay to misuse the credit card because there are no (govt) funds expended (when the employee pays the bill) is not a true statement.
Re: Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
Logistics Manager Navy Wed Feb 7, 2007 6:03 AM
So, using the "Civilian, Govt's" logic, since we're all paid with taxpayer funds, any taxpayer at any time can come into any one of our homes, drive our cars, and so on and so forth...after all, it's all purchased with taxpayer dollars, right?
Back to the original topic: I know someone who was travelling to Europe, some years back, when his luggage was lost (stolen, whathaveyou). Seeing as it was Europe in the winter, this person bought a jacket. Not a wardrobe; not a suitcase, a trunk, or a set of luggage, but a jacket to keep warm. Young person at the time had no other credit cards, besides his gov't mandated travel card. He caught holy h-e-double L from everyone in his division for misuse of gov't travel card, and yet, he was forced to apply for said card, forced to use it, forced to cover expenses or suffer his own personal credit rating decline (as are we all even today). Now if he hadn't paid the bill for it, I could see the point.
Re: Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
Civilian Govt Wed Feb 7, 2007 8:37 AM
Logistics, your comment is just too silly--just like buying a suitcase with a GCC.
Re: Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
Logistics Manager Navy Wed Feb 7, 2007 11:25 AM
Take some personal responsibililty for the silliness of your own remarks. Your premise is that even if all other things are equal, the fact that a traveler pays for something with his or her own money out of their own pocket by reimbursing the credit card, it's still unauthorized because the taxpayers (which include, by the way, gov't workers) pay the traveler's salary. I'm merely logically extending the very basis for your argument. If the money you use to reimburse a purchase card is the taxpayers' and not your own, then neither is the money you use to purchase anything else yours alone, and not the taxpayers'.
Anyway, that's not my major gripe with the whole system. The gripe is that we are forced to deal with the good, the bad, and especially the ugly of the mandate to use a gov't travel card. The Gov't and the taxpayers are off the hook if you or I fail to pay our credit card bills; authorized charges or otherwise; your "silliness" argument notwithstanding.
Re: Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
Civilian Govt Thu Feb 8, 2007 7:44 AM
So why did GAO spend taxpayer's dollars to investigate misuse of the purchase card at DHS? (See Feb 7 article)Obviously, someone thinks there's a problem with lack of accountability.
And yes, driving my car and coming into my home is a silly response.
Ethics and credit cards
CSI FSIS Tue Feb 6, 2007 1:31 PM
I agree also with chairman Mc Phie in his effort at bring a higher standard of ethical behavior to the government but, herein lies the problem. The government is a representation of the people that are goverened and our society has gotten away from following rules and regulations and the wink that congress does to the ethic laws is a shame and as was mentioned the rot usually starts near the top. The credit cards a another story. If the person buys unauthorized goods and services but pays the card in full as is the custom then no harm, no foul. If the card is not paid off however then the privilege should be removed and the business is conducted with money that is reimbursed without the aid of a credit card recipt. Everything would have to have a recipt and only MI&E would be able to be used without. Then when the employee gets ready to leave he/ she would have to clear the credit card company before they recieved their last check.
Ethics and legality
Retired DOD USAF Thu Feb 8, 2007 2:03 PM
Gee Whiz! All this talk about wasting "taxpayer's money" soars into the asnine area. Hey, I wonder how many of you are on government time, and using government resources (computers) to read and respond to these articles? Is that an ethical way to spend our taxpayer's money? Nope. Not only is it unethical, it's also illegal, and punishable by law.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Travel Card Program
Travel Card Manager DoD Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:53 AM
Folks need to understand that the Travel Card (TC) Program is intended to provide a safe and effective way to fund official travel. Misuse and abuse of the card can become a nightmare if not properly managed. Although the liability is not a government liability, left to the sole discretion of the account owner could potentially bring risks to the program:
Cardholders: Write off reported to credit agencies. Bad for personal credit and potentially a security liability regarding clearance. Bank: Amount written off can be costly and therefore not financially viable for the bank. Gov't: Loss of the program results in manual travel advances by the finance office. More work for everyone. Essentially, misuse and abuse of the card should not be tolerated. With regards to crime and punishment ... I would agree that firing someone may be a bit harsh ... even for a second offense. Do't be mistaken, the MSPB did not rule in favor of card misuse or abuse ... rather the severity of punishment.
Re: Travel Card Program
Reformed Conservative DFAS Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:08 AM
You say the card program is intended to provide a "safe and effective" way to fund government travel; from what I'm reading here, it's not doing either very well. Maybe GAO, OPM, and Congress need to look at this program and revise it?
Re: Travel Card Program
Travel Card Manager DoD Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:08 AM
Yes ... it could be set up much better. The program is a very manual program. More automation and better authorization controls are needed to reduce or eliminate misuse and abuse of the card. Those changes come at a cost though ... and finding that fine balance is difficult. The new SmartPay2 contract was found to be not financially worthwhile to Bank of America. So they are not bidding on it. Bank of America manages a very large portion of the program for many Agencies. But, if we want all these controls in place at a price we can afford, I believe that the banks would pull out of the program.
Ethics and Credit Cards
Civilian Employee under CSRS USAF Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:58 PM
Are Gov't employees still mandated to use the Gov't credit card while TDY? I see absolutely "no problem" with using the Gov't credit card (for any reason) while on TDY status. When the bill comes due to be paid, the cardholder must file only for those charges authorized under the TDY orders. If he/she chooses to rent a car that is not authorized on the orders, that person must pay the cost independently and not submit a voucher for reimbursement. As long as the credit card charges are paid in full between the cardholder and the Gov't voucher (for those charges authorized), there isn't a problem. I DO have concerns with the Monday Night Quarterbacking that comes in months later to analyze charges against the card. There are competent men and women who review the vouchers and what is being reimbursed. Let them do their jobs.
Govt Card
Specialist banking related Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:54 AM
In our agency, our travel voucher system refund system works really well. The employee completes the Travel vouchers electronically and submits same. The expenses are in a drop down menu, so you can't claim things that are not in the travel regs. Its a maximum of 3 days after submission and the funds are in the bank account you specified. Once the funds are in my account, I turn around go to the credit card website and pay the bill immediately. And yes, our cash withdrawal fees are paid. Both for the use of the machine as well as the mandated 1.9% fee for the cash withdrawal. Sounds like some of you are in the wrong agency if its taking multiple months to get reimbursed. You need to be asking why your agency does not have the electronic travel voucher system.
Govt Credit Cards In General
Specialist Federal Agency Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:47 AM
Frankly, the govt can have all these cards back...I'd rather give them up than to be scrutinized all the time for minor, petty stuff. The taxpayers could give a hoot if I use the travel card to pay for unofficial items (a candy bar, a shirt), they'd only care if the credit card is NOT reimbursed and the govt has to eat the costs of my failure to pay. The fact is, the only dollars the govt reimburses me when I put my travel voucher in is the actual money I am entitled to under the travel regs.
As some others have said, the govt gets a kickback when we use our credit cards...in our agency we are required to use it for all travel related expenses (airfare, hotel, cabs (if taken), meals).
Government Credit Cards
Analyst IRS Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:24 PM
This is serious business. We are Federal employees and as civil servants we should be held to a higher accountable standard. When in doubt, ask, before charging a "controversial" item. Yes, pay your bills on -time too.
Mixing of personal and public business
Contracting Officer USAF Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:42 PM
I have never had a problem getting my voucher processed. I go to DTS the first working day back from TDY and do my voucher. My bill is paid within five days. Even before DTS came out, USAF was required to use split disbursement. I agree with Intelligence Specialist Dept of Army, not the best system, but I don't worry about my bill.
Misuse of Governement Travel Credit Card
Human Resourse Assistant IRS Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:46 AM
The one thing about this subject that NO ONE is saying. An average employee has limitations on their government credit card. The card will not let you use it if not paying for a hotel/motel room, purchasing food, or a transportation ticket of some sort. If you are not a manger or excetutive your card will not let any other charges go through. So, who and how are these bogus and unauthorized charges going through the system to be okayed? I think the bosses are sticking together, that is why overcharging is NO big deal. But, let me mishandle $.50 (cents) and I can get fired or 15 days off without pay. Now, does the government have double standards? I am getting written up by my manager who has probably illegally mischarged their government credit card for hundreds/thousands Will wonders never sease? To those who don't care what the comments are about they just correct the spelling. Please go at it..
Unauthorized Use of Government Travel Card
Worker US Army Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:54 AM
There is a big difference between misuse of a Govt Travel Card and a Government Purchase Card. The individual is responsible for paying off a Travel Card, while the Purchase Card is spending government funds, usually appropriated funds. Charging unauthorized items to a GPC is theft and embezzlement and should lead to removal, but charging them to a Travel Card is an administrative error. The whole matter of forcing government personnel to have a Travel Card is counterproductive. If the employee is financially solvent and responsible, then why shouldn't they charge a massage if they are going to pay for it. If they are not financially solvent and responsible, then forcing them to have a charge card is putting them under temptation.
Not Taxpayer Money
ACT Chapter Vice President ANG Fri May 29, 2009 10:41 AM
I am an Agency Program Coordinator (APC). I agree that this is a problem and that the use by these individuals was illegal. The card is for very specific purpose of reimbursable travel expenses while on official travel, period. Keep in mind, though:
I think that one point that is not really made about this, and is even written to be misleading, is that the GTC is not government money. Terms like "unauthorized charges" make it sound like fraud. I have yet to get "authorization" from anyone in order to charge something on the GTC. This is improper use of a card that the individual _always_ has to pay himself. In reality, if we all used this card for person purchases and paid it off every month, the govt would reap tons of money in rebates.
It is not an abuse of or fraudulent use of taxpayer money. I'll bet that plays into the decisions made and their lack of severity.
Travel Card
DoD
Mon Feb 5, 2007 9:23 AM
What is the harm to the Government if an employee uses their Travel card to rack up oodles of charges as long as the employee timely pays the bill?
Re: Travel Card
civilian agency
Mon Feb 5, 2007 9:31 AM
Re: Travel Card
DFAS
Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:26 AM
Re: Travel Card
DOD
Tue Feb 6, 2007 12:23 PM
Re: Travel Card
USDA
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:51 PM
Re: Travel Card
DOL
Wed May 23, 2007 8:21 AM
Ethics and Travel Cards
DoD
Mon Feb 5, 2007 9:28 AM
It's too bad when articles are published about travel card abuse, that it isn't told that even when an Agency tries to punish the offendor, MSPB won't back up the Agency. If such information received as wide-spread attention as the offense, I dare say public outcry would see to it that Agencies were allowed to fire offenders. Come on, folks! If individuals cannot be ethical, they need to quit feeding at the public trough. This is OUR tax dollars at work.
Credit card abuse
Army
Mon Feb 5, 2007 9:46 AM
Yes, ethical standards do come from the top. MSPB is not the top. Congress and the political appointees in the Executive branch are. Neither have shown high ethical standards over the years, especially Congress. Worse, Congress passes laws to hold Executive branch employees (as in hired, not appointed) to high standards, but exempts itself. That's called hypocrisy.
For example, the vast majority of purchase card holders are honest, but are treated like the few crooks who make headlines. The single-purchase spending limit has never been increased, so the purchase card will soon be useless, thanks to inflation and Congress's refusal to raise it. Our esteemed elected officials don't have the guts to kill the program, but they'll let it die by attrition.
No wonder Congressional ethics is considered an oxymoron.
Re: Credit card abuse
DOD
Mon Feb 5, 2007 12:51 PM
Credit card abuse not for everyone
DOD Navy
Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:01 AM
As a Federal Employee that had been authorized a Government credit card for travel purposes, I fully uderstood that it's use was not authorized for things other than official government business. I never used it for any other purpose as a sense of duty and honesty.
On the other side of the coin, a Federal employee that does not have a credit card will only receive 70% of his travel expenses up-front. Before I had gotten my credit card, I would have to choose between eating or staying in a decent hotel. The Federal government is not the quickest player when it comes to reimbursement of travel expenses. Often my personal credit card bill would come due before I received my reimbursement. After one incident where I paid my hotel bill in advance, I only had $35.00 to pay for meals, transportation to the training facility, and for tips. The training was for two weeks, I ran out of money in three days. I could not even pay for the gas for the rental car.3 months later, I was reimbursed.
Re: Credit card abuse not for everyone
VA
Tue Feb 6, 2007 8:53 AM
Re: Credit card abuse not for everyone
DOD
Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:28 AM
Travel Card
Navy
Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:04 AM
I've never understood all of the outrage over personal charges on the travel cards. The government gets a rebate based on the total charges made on the cards. Therefore it is benefiting from any such "misuse." Unlike "purchase" cards, all charges made on travel cards are the sole financial responsibility of the card holder. So the issue ought to be whether or not the card holder is paying the bill every month and not what they are charging. The management oversight energy saved could then been spent reviewing "purchase" card buys, which are subject to fraudulent use and are paid directly by the government.
Appeal to Fed Circuit - abuse of discretion
USDA
Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:07 AM
A surprisingly inaccurate decision by this Board. I would appeal to the Fed Circuit.
Mixing of personal and public business
Forest Service
Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:08 AM
On my government travel card, the bill comes to my home address, I write a check on my personal checking account to pay the bill, and I request re-imbursement from the government. The Government is already mixing personal and public finances here. Since the person in this story did not request re-imbursement for the "inappropriate" charges, there was no money stolen form the Government. She was temporarily using the governments "good name" to secure credit, but the Government also uses her checking account to temporarily pay it's bills. As I understand the story, she broke the rules, and so merited some punishment, but perhaps the original punsihment was too severe. I think it's a lousy system. Why not have the Government pay it's credit card bills directly, instead of using my checking account as an imtermediate.
Re: Mixing of personal and public business
Dept of Army
Mon Feb 5, 2007 11:26 AM
Ethics, credit cards and government leaders
HUD
Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:12 AM
It is difficult to see why it is such a big thing to buy something you need when detailed or traveling, and use your government travel card. It may be something not authorized in the regs, but it is your card, your responsibility, your credit report, etc. The government does not pay if you fail to do so. Then there is the issue (much improved these days) of SLOW reimbursement. It is hard to timely make payments when you don't get reimbursed for several months. There are ways around that, but it is still your responsibility even if you don't get timely reimbursed.
Then there is the issue of watching our elected officials in action. I work 40 hours a week. A congressperson works 2 or 2-1/2 days a week. I know they say they are doing their job the other 20+ hours, but it is hard to buy that when they are all running for re-election on OUR time. So, we use some of our sick leave for a mental health day? I want to see the congress put in full work days for our tax dollars.
Re: Ethics, credit cards and government leaders
FAA
Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:17 PM
You as a manager order the travel, tell us when where and how and then want us to pay the expenses out of our own funds until someone gets around to issue us a check.
What hogwash! I did not want this card, but was FORCED to take it. If it offical travel, why dosen't the government pay it like the purchase card?
Credit Cards
Internal Revenue Service
Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:24 AM
I agree that there is a major issue with unauthorized purchases on credit cards; but these are in fact not government credit cards. The employee is on the hook for them and the government does not guarantee the card. If you default it shows up on your credit rating. The federal government has no one to blame other than the fool who came up with the idea of issuing " govrnment creidt cards" to anyone traveling more than twice in a twelve month period.
If the government were out anymoney on this, I would whole heartedly supprt termination of these employees.
But What About the Grey Areas?
DFAS
Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:37 AM
I once got counseled for travel card abuse. I was returning from travel and had to carry back a large amount of material associated with my job that I had accumulated. To do this, I stopped off at a store and bought a new suitcase. I put it on my travel card, but paid that part of the bill myself since I had kept it. I was later told that it was considered a personal item, and not suitable for the travel card. The suggestion was made that I should have withdrawn cash and purhased it that way, even though my approach saved the government the ATM fee. My supervisor had a hard time keeping a straight face while she explained to me that suitcases are not travel related.
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
fed agency
Mon Feb 5, 2007 11:35 AM
Yes, employees are ultimately responsible for paying the debts, but they are using the government's credit (not their own) to ascertain their purchases. Further, if they don't pay it the banks may write off the expenses which creates problems for the government's credibility.
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
DFAS
Mon Feb 5, 2007 1:26 PM
2) I did not put it on my own card because I did not have it. I do not use cards, except for travel, and did not bring mine because I had the government card. I did not expect any non-work related charges, and did not have any (See item 1 above).
3) When we use our cards in ATM’s the ATM charges a fee. We report it in block 18 of the DD 1351-2, include a copy of the slip, and get reimbursed for it.
4) My supervisor was a very intelligent lady who appreciated the incongruity.
5) I do not depend on government credit for a card. I can get one.
6) "If" I don't pay? If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
fed agency
Mon Feb 5, 2007 2:31 PM
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
DFAS
Mon Feb 5, 2007 3:39 PM
2) I didn't need permission to mail or ship. That was not a viable option. It was after hours in a small town with no Pac Mail and I had to be on a flight first thing in the morning with no time to mail it.
3) I considered the paper bag. Didn't think it would be adequate.
If I am smug, it is because I am right. If I erred, it was in my original flip response to the article -- the seeming incongruity of a suitcase not being travel related was too good to pass up on. I didn't err in my actions. I didn't go shopping for a suitcase; I took the best solution in a situation without any good solutions, and it resulted in a rather silly technical violation.
Now, tell me something I've been wondering about. What's an ER Specialist?
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
DOD
Tue Feb 6, 2007 7:33 AM
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
DFAS
Tue Feb 6, 2007 8:14 AM
2) Considered it, but it's too much trouble. I'd rather be the guy that pulls the strings, like Richelieu. Or better than that, Vice President. Collect a fat paycheck to play golf and attend state funerals.
3) Does reformed conservative mean Libertarian?
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
DOD
Tue Feb 6, 2007 9:37 AM
Nope, not Libertarian; I don't think Libertarianism is feasible in a group larger than about 10 people. Just another disaffected voter! There seem to be many voters like me--not conservative, not liberal, just disgusted with politics as usual--but few politicians seem interested in courting us.
Re: But What About the Grey Areas?
Federal Agency
Tue Feb 6, 2007 3:02 PM
Just one question: Did your agency reimburse you for the luggage? If not, then it was PERSONAL! Case closed.
Victimless Crime
air force
Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:50 AM
I must admit that I may not really understand why this is not an excessive control issue as opposed to an ethics lapse as no taxpayer loses one red cent. I truly believe under the scales of justice applied by an impartial jury that this punishment should weigh excessive for what appears to be at best, giving every benefit of doubt to the accusers, a victimless crime.
situational ethics
interior
Mon Feb 5, 2007 10:58 AM
The comments in response to the article seem to prove the author's point about "situational ethics". Some may not understand why the regulation exists. If the user does not understand it, or chooses not to understand it, or just doesn't care about the regulations, it is okay to do what you want and not worry about it.
Under this logic, each person apparently has the right to make his or her own decisions about what is right or wrong or which regulations are justified or which ones are not and to act accordingly.
When combined with the problems in hiring new employees, and our inability to hire the best people, we are headed for trouble. We hire less qualified people, create a culture of "doing your own thing" and then we will do investigations and issue reports bemoaning a situation where nothing of value gets done.
Re: situational ethics
DFAS
Mon Feb 5, 2007 1:57 PM
*Actually, an experiment showed that a surprising number of people are willing to do simply horrible things if someone else agrees to take responsability for it.
**If P implies Q is true, and Q is false, then P must be false. In other words, if a premise leads to a false conclusion, then we must reject the premise, no matter how much sense it seemed to make at the time.
Re: situational ethics
Govt
Mon Feb 5, 2007 2:58 PM
By the way, what happened to the suitcase when you returned to work?
Re: situational ethics
DFAS
Mon Feb 5, 2007 4:39 PM
I see an ethical problem with travel cards on the part of the government. The government makes them our responsibility, then limits how we can use them. If the government wants the cards to be their cards, then they should take responsibility for them. This doesn’t mean that I abuse mine. The suitcase was a decision I made in a small town after normal business hours when I didn’t see any better choices.
I still have it. I didn’t want it, but didn’t think it would fly if I filed for reimbursement. If I had, it probably would have ended up at DRMO and I could have bought it back at auction for $2.
Re: situational ethics
Govt
Tue Feb 6, 2007 1:46 PM
Situational
DOD
Mon Feb 5, 2007 11:34 AM
I wonder if your last comment refers to HR folks as well about "well qualified?"
Ethics, Credit Cards and Government Leaders
Army
Mon Feb 5, 2007 12:08 PM
I've never uderstood what the issue is. The employee that the card is issued to is responsible for all charges placed on that card - not the Government. He/She gets the bill and must pay it. Everyone seems to try to compare it to the private sector. There is no comparison. In the private sector a company credit card is not issued to the employee - it is issued to the company, they get the bill and they are responsible for payment. Sometimes the employee is forwarded a copy of the charges as a courtesy but not always, unless there is some question or justification required.
Executive Situational Ethics
Social Security Administration
Mon Feb 5, 2007 12:28 PM
How about when the executive of an Agence determines that the agency will improve its 'diversity'. It then promotes less qualified people of the correct demographics over more highly qualified people of the incorrect demographics. Does not the Agency show that merit is only a last consideration in promotion. Our Regional Commissioner has let it be known that she will promote the 'wrong' demographic person only if no choice is available.
Credit Card Usage
Department of the Air Force
Mon Feb 5, 2007 1:00 PM
The misuse of credit cards is not limited to Federal employees whether they be at the senior or lower levels. Just look at what is happening in the Dallas Independent School District which has found that its employees have been misusing their school credit cards to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Agencies need to reevulate to whom they issue credit cards and insure that those given these cards understand that their use is for official use only. Those misusing the card should first be given a warning and remedial training on their use but if the misuse continues they should be held accountable. The same accountability standard should be applied to all with credit cards. The employee's position should not be a factor. Don't do what Dallas is doing - prosecuting the secretaries and reassigning the principals. By the way, nothing is being done to those who determined at a secretaries with no official needs were given credit cards.
You owe us a follow-up story ...
DoD, Dept of the Army
Mon Feb 5, 2007 1:10 PM
I don't understand why you've jumped past the other ethics issue and commented only on the application of regulations to the credit charges.
The prerequisite issue here is that the Gov't makes the employee responsible for the card, requires them to use it for certain expenses (to ensure the Gov't getting the kick-back from the credit card company so some bean counter gets credit for so-called savings to the Gov't), and then picks our bones if we end up mixing Gov't and personal expenses even though we don't apply for reimbursement of personal expenses.
I had a supervisor REQUIRE me to place Gov't charges on my Gov't travel card so the Gov't gets the kick-back. I would prefer to use one of my own personal cards to avoid Gov't intrusion.
Bottom line: if you make me responsible for the card, let me handle it (if I put personal charges on it, I'll pay them...even though I avoid it so Big Brother does not get any more insight into my personal spending habits than necessary).
Situational ethics (gag)
retired
Mon Feb 5, 2007 1:57 PM
After reading the AJ's initial decision, and much as I, as a former ER specialist, would like to support management, I would not have encouraged removal in this case. But as to "situational ethics," the cards (charge, not credit, cards) are government property and are to be used solely for official business. However, the necessity of purchasing some items will be debatable. A suitcase to bring back course material? No. But using the card to box that material up and ship it back, definitely. The difference? Shipping costs are a one-shot deal, and only the government benefits. The suitcase can be reused by the employee. How does it look to taxpayers who will never know if the employee paid for it? Not good! It's the opinion of taxpayers that counts the most...
Re: Situational ethics (gag)
DFAS
Mon Feb 5, 2007 5:08 PM
MSPB decision
Agriculture
Mon Feb 5, 2007 2:54 PM
Perhaps there were other mitigating circumstances with respect to this employee (Douglas factor issues). We don't know the whole story.
Normally I would be outraged by misuse of a gov't card, but I am currently the victim of bullying and sexual harassment from my supervisor. It is clear that her lies have more credibility with management than my documentation and witness reports. It has destroyed my confidence in the fairness of our government.
Government MANDATED Travel Cards are a MESS!!!!!!
BLM
Mon Feb 5, 2007 4:57 PM
Previously I worked for 2 USDA agencies, and initially both issued Govt Travel CC's to anyone who traveled (overnight) twice a year or more, and EVERYONE, regardless how much (or little) they traveled on Govt business had a $25,000 credit limit! How much sense did that make? And apparently much wasn't done in the way of credit checks either. Requiring an employee to obtain a Govt Travel CC with a $25,000 credit limit, without looking at whether they handled credit responsibly was a recipe for disaster. It's like giving an alcoholic a bottle of their favorite flavor, and then telling them NOT to drink it!
With that approach, Govt agencies got what they asked for, a mess!!! I called the Bank that issued my USDA card and asked them to lower the credit limit to $3,000 and they said they couldn't do that, that I would have to work through agency channels to have that done. I ended up having to contact someone in my Agency's Washington DC office just to get my credit limit lowered!
Credit Card Agreements.
DOT
Mon Feb 5, 2007 7:45 PM
Most employees view personal charges on a government card as transparent for the most part but there have been defaults. Some employees have been irresponsible in use of the cards and have been unable to reimburse the credit card company and that is outside of the credit card company agreeement.
Several years ago employees were given cash travel advances to cover costs and credit cards have replaced them. Employees sign an agreement that they will use these cards for valid expenses only. If you disagree then you have the option of using your own credit card except in the case of purchasing airline tickets.
The voucher payment time has been vastly reduced and the delays in payment are mostly attributed to employees not submitting appropriate paperwork, not the system. Most managers and voucher processors are more than reasonable.
Credit cards are an excellent vehicle for covering employees expenses but they need to be used responsibly.
Re: Credit Card Agreements.
BLM
Tue Feb 6, 2007 1:47 PM
Misuse of Credit Card
IRS
Mon Feb 5, 2007 7:49 PM
There should be a way to bring larceny charges via local prosecutors for unauthorized use of a credit card. Especially if there is a pattern.
Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
DHS
Mon Feb 5, 2007 9:16 PM
It seems to me that there are no tax payer dollars involved unless or until the government actually pays something. And since they don't, even in a default, where is the theft?
I was issued a government credit card when I detailed to the Olympics in 1996. I used it a couple of times in '97, '98 and '99 but have not traveled since then.
I get a new card every two years even though the one in my wallet right now has never been activated.
Re: Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
Govt
Tue Feb 6, 2007 9:02 AM
Re: Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
DHS
Tue Feb 6, 2007 1:15 PM
Interesting theory though, because I work for the government, it is taxpayer money. Careful with that one though, I know alot of government workers who are then STEALING government funds each and every day they show up at the office.
Re: Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
Govt
Tue Feb 6, 2007 3:03 PM
Re: Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
Navy
Wed Feb 7, 2007 6:03 AM
Back to the original topic: I know someone who was travelling to Europe, some years back, when his luggage was lost (stolen, whathaveyou). Seeing as it was Europe in the winter, this person bought a jacket. Not a wardrobe; not a suitcase, a trunk, or a set of luggage, but a jacket to keep warm. Young person at the time had no other credit cards, besides his gov't mandated travel card. He caught holy h-e-double L from everyone in his division for misuse of gov't travel card, and yet, he was forced to apply for said card, forced to use it, forced to cover expenses or suffer his own personal credit rating decline (as are we all even today). Now if he hadn't paid the bill for it, I could see the point.
Re: Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
Govt
Wed Feb 7, 2007 8:37 AM
Re: Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
Navy
Wed Feb 7, 2007 11:25 AM
Anyway, that's not my major gripe with the whole system. The gripe is that we are forced to deal with the good, the bad, and especially the ugly of the mandate to use a gov't travel card. The Gov't and the taxpayers are off the hook if you or I fail to pay our credit card bills; authorized charges or otherwise; your "silliness" argument notwithstanding.
Re: Theft of TaxPayer dollars???
Govt
Thu Feb 8, 2007 7:44 AM
And yes, driving my car and coming into my home is a silly response.
Ethics and credit cards
FSIS
Tue Feb 6, 2007 1:31 PM
I agree also with chairman Mc Phie in his effort at bring a higher standard of ethical behavior to the government but, herein lies the problem. The government is a representation of the people that are goverened and our society has gotten away from following rules and regulations and the wink that congress does to the ethic laws is a shame and as was mentioned the rot usually starts near the top. The credit cards a another story. If the person buys unauthorized goods and services but pays the card in full as is the custom then no harm, no foul. If the card is not paid off however then the privilege should be removed and the business is conducted with money that is reimbursed without the aid of a credit card recipt. Everything would have to have a recipt and only MI&E would be able to be used without. Then when the employee gets ready to leave he/ she would have to clear the credit card company before they recieved their last check.
Ethics and legality
USAF
Thu Feb 8, 2007 2:03 PM
Gee Whiz! All this talk about wasting "taxpayer's money" soars into the asnine area. Hey, I wonder how many of you are on government time, and using government resources (computers) to read and respond to these articles? Is that an ethical way to spend our taxpayer's money? Nope. Not only is it unethical, it's also illegal, and punishable by law.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Travel Card Program
DoD
Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:53 AM
Folks need to understand that the Travel Card (TC) Program is intended to provide a safe and effective way to fund official travel. Misuse and abuse of the card can become a nightmare if not properly managed. Although the liability is not a government liability, left to the sole discretion of the account owner could potentially bring risks to the program:
Cardholders: Write off reported to credit agencies. Bad for personal credit and potentially a security liability regarding clearance. Bank: Amount written off can be costly and therefore not financially viable for the bank. Gov't: Loss of the program results in manual travel advances by the finance office. More work for everyone. Essentially, misuse and abuse of the card should not be tolerated. With regards to crime and punishment ... I would agree that firing someone may be a bit harsh ... even for a second offense. Do't be mistaken, the MSPB did not rule in favor of card misuse or abuse ... rather the severity of punishment.
Re: Travel Card Program
DFAS
Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:08 AM
Re: Travel Card Program
DoD
Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:08 AM
Ethics and Credit Cards
USAF
Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:58 PM
Are Gov't employees still mandated to use the Gov't credit card while TDY? I see absolutely "no problem" with using the Gov't credit card (for any reason) while on TDY status. When the bill comes due to be paid, the cardholder must file only for those charges authorized under the TDY orders. If he/she chooses to rent a car that is not authorized on the orders, that person must pay the cost independently and not submit a voucher for reimbursement. As long as the credit card charges are paid in full between the cardholder and the Gov't voucher (for those charges authorized), there isn't a problem. I DO have concerns with the Monday Night Quarterbacking that comes in months later to analyze charges against the card. There are competent men and women who review the vouchers and what is being reimbursed. Let them do their jobs.
Govt Card
banking related
Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:54 AM
In our agency, our travel voucher system refund system works really well. The employee completes the Travel vouchers electronically and submits same. The expenses are in a drop down menu, so you can't claim things that are not in the travel regs. Its a maximum of 3 days after submission and the funds are in the bank account you specified. Once the funds are in my account, I turn around go to the credit card website and pay the bill immediately. And yes, our cash withdrawal fees are paid. Both for the use of the machine as well as the mandated 1.9% fee for the cash withdrawal. Sounds like some of you are in the wrong agency if its taking multiple months to get reimbursed. You need to be asking why your agency does not have the electronic travel voucher system.
Govt Credit Cards In General
Federal Agency
Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:47 AM
Frankly, the govt can have all these cards back...I'd rather give them up than to be scrutinized all the time for minor, petty stuff. The taxpayers could give a hoot if I use the travel card to pay for unofficial items (a candy bar, a shirt), they'd only care if the credit card is NOT reimbursed and the govt has to eat the costs of my failure to pay. The fact is, the only dollars the govt reimburses me when I put my travel voucher in is the actual money I am entitled to under the travel regs.
As some others have said, the govt gets a kickback when we use our credit cards...in our agency we are required to use it for all travel related expenses (airfare, hotel, cabs (if taken), meals).
Government Credit Cards
IRS
Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:24 PM
This is serious business. We are Federal employees and as civil servants we should be held to a higher accountable standard. When in doubt, ask, before charging a "controversial" item. Yes, pay your bills on -time too.
Mixing of personal and public business
USAF
Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:42 PM
I have never had a problem getting my voucher processed. I go to DTS the first working day back from TDY and do my voucher. My bill is paid within five days. Even before DTS came out, USAF was required to use split disbursement. I agree with Intelligence Specialist Dept of Army, not the best system, but I don't worry about my bill.
Misuse of Governement Travel Credit Card
IRS
Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:46 AM
The one thing about this subject that NO ONE is saying. An average employee has limitations on their government credit card. The card will not let you use it if not paying for a hotel/motel room, purchasing food, or a transportation ticket of some sort. If you are not a manger or excetutive your card will not let any other charges go through. So, who and how are these bogus and unauthorized charges going through the system to be okayed? I think the bosses are sticking together, that is why overcharging is NO big deal. But, let me mishandle $.50 (cents) and I can get fired or 15 days off without pay. Now, does the government have double standards? I am getting written up by my manager who has probably illegally mischarged their government credit card for hundreds/thousands Will wonders never sease? To those who don't care what the comments are about they just correct the spelling. Please go at it..
Unauthorized Use of Government Travel Card
US Army
Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:54 AM
There is a big difference between misuse of a Govt Travel Card and a Government Purchase Card. The individual is responsible for paying off a Travel Card, while the Purchase Card is spending government funds, usually appropriated funds. Charging unauthorized items to a GPC is theft and embezzlement and should lead to removal, but charging them to a Travel Card is an administrative error. The whole matter of forcing government personnel to have a Travel Card is counterproductive. If the employee is financially solvent and responsible, then why shouldn't they charge a massage if they are going to pay for it. If they are not financially solvent and responsible, then forcing them to have a charge card is putting them under temptation.
Not Taxpayer Money
ANG
Fri May 29, 2009 10:41 AM
I am an Agency Program Coordinator (APC). I agree that this is a problem and that the use by these individuals was illegal. The card is for very specific purpose of reimbursable travel expenses while on official travel, period. Keep in mind, though:
I think that one point that is not really made about this, and is even written to be misleading, is that the GTC is not government money. Terms like "unauthorized charges" make it sound like fraud. I have yet to get "authorization" from anyone in order to charge something on the GTC. This is improper use of a card that the individual _always_ has to pay himself. In reality, if we all used this card for person purchases and paid it off every month, the govt would reap tons of money in rebates.
It is not an abuse of or fraudulent use of taxpayer money. I'll bet that plays into the decisions made and their lack of severity.