�
 |
|
 |
|
|
| Report: Millions wasted on gov't travel - |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
olympic
 Posted:
Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:35 am |
|
|
|
Report: Millions wasted on gov't travel
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Federal employees wasted at least $146 million over a one-year period on business- and first-class airline tickets, in some cases simply because they felt entitled to the perk, congressional investigators say.
A draft report by the Government Accountability Office, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, is the first to examine compliance with travel rules across the federal government following reports of extensive abuse of premium-class travel by Pentagon and State Department employees.
The review of travel spending by more than a dozen agencies from July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006, found 67 percent of premium-class travel by executives or their employees, worth at least $146 million, was unauthorized or otherwise unjustified.
Among the worst offenders: the State Department, whose employees typically fly abroad on official business.
Many of the cases involved high-ranking senior officials or political appointees who claimed exceptions to federal travel rules by citing old medical records or questionable approval from a subordinate employee.
Investigators found that senior officials often flew business- or first-class because they felt entitled to the perk.
The higher airfare for traveling in one of the premium classes resulted in expenses often five to 10 times more than what was authorized under government travel rules.
"With the serious fiscal challenges facing the federal government, agencies must maximize their ability to manage and safeguard valuable taxpayers' dollars," investigators wrote, suggesting agencies recoup the extra cost from those who abuse travel policies.
Under federal rules, government employees generally must fly coach for both domestic and international travel unless the flight takes 14 hours or longer. A few exceptions apply when the employee receives agency approval based on a medical condition, security concerns, lack of availability of coach seats or when required "because of agency mission."
Government investigators found that employees openly flouted the rules and agencies did little to check their abuses. Among the waste cited:
_An Agriculture Department executive took 25 premium-class flights costing $163,000 and said the extra expense had been authorized by a subordinate. In 10 of those trips, the traveler claimed exceptional circumstances to justify the pricier travel to western Europe, even though agency policy forbids premium-class travel unless the flight time is longer than 14 hours.
_Thirty-two State Department employees flew from Washington to Liberia in premium class over a six-month period. Five of those travelers did not have authorization for premium class; three had duplicate tickets and no evidence that the duplicates were refunded; and 17 were not properly justified, as their trips did not meet the 14-hour rule. These flights cost $293,000 and comparable coach-class tickets would have cost $124,000 — a difference of $169,000.
_At the Pentagon, a political appointee took 15 premium-class flights and cited a medical condition as justification for the $105,000 in expenses. However, the only evidence of a medical condition was a note signed by a fellow Pentagon employee, not a physician, attesting to surgery from several years earlier. The Pentagon did not have a doctor's certification from the employee as required by agency policy.
_Nine Justice Department employees charged the agency $35,000 for premium-class air tickets to Frankfurt, Germany, claiming the flight time was over 14 hours. Investigators found the employees added a separate flight to their calculations to reach the 14-hour total, a practice not allowed under government travel rules. Also, two of the flights were not authorized.
The GAO, Congress' investigative and auditing arm, said it was referring all cases it found of improper and abusive travel to the respective agencies and inspector general's offices for possible administrative action and repayment of the difference between premium-class and coach-class travel.
The report comes as some lawmakers are pressing to strengthen government sunshine laws by requiring agency disclosure of business-class travel to Congress. Currently, business-class travel accounts for 96 percent of the premium travel claimed by federal employees.
"No one disputes the fact that government officials need to travel, as not all work can be done behind a desk. Nor should all premium-class travel be eliminated. But the rules are there for a reason and the federal government should enforce them," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
Coleman noted that after a 2003 GAO report uncovered abuses in Pentagon travel, the department tightened policies and has since dramatically reduced its use of premium travel.
"We simply need the necessary oversight mechanisms in place to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent properly," he said.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who is seeking to provide greater accountability in the use of government-issued credit cards, agreed.
"The federal employees who like to stretch their legs while they fly need to realize they've already stretched the taxpayer's purse by $146 million," he said. "Agencies need to be more responsible with their travel programs and employees who violate the policy should be held accountable."
The latest GAO report noted that several government entities are not subject to government rules on premium-class travel — among them, the U.S. Postal Service, Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. — opening up more opportunities for unnecessary waste.
Those entities often allow members of their board of governors to travel business or first class for shorter flights overseas and sometimes domestically. In one case, a deputy director of FDIC flew business class from Washington to London and back at a cost of $7,200, while a coach- class ticket would have cost $800.
|
|
Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 2114
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:11 pm |
|
|
|
I dislike government waste, and there is plenty of it, but if a government employee is required to fly overseas, I believe that they should be able to stretch their legs. They are not going on a pleasure trip. They are on a business trip. The problem today is that many airlines do not allow sufficient leg room in coach. They are wrong, but the public has little to say unless they upgrade to business or pay for business/first class.
I fly Air France in coach unless I upgrade and the coach service is wonderful. The leg space is comparable to American and they have foot rests, not to mention the best airline food around and great wine.
Back on topic, let the government employees fly comfortably but stop wasting money on bombs and wars.
JMO,
Yif
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6979
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| olympic
Posted:
Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:37 pm |
|
|
|
i agree with the arms, and leg room, all of that....but $146 million of taxpayers money wasted, just because, just because they feel they are entitled to perks....and no one will be held accountable for that... 
|
|
Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 2114
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Torti
Posted:
Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:26 pm |
|
|
|
And how much will it cost for the bureauocracy to police the use of public funds for air travel? It would probably cost more to review and recover what improper funding was used than would be prevented or recouped. And the US taxpayer would be stuck with yet another agency to pay.
One solution is that the Federal government should only pay for coach seating and any upgrades should be paid for by the individual traveler. Obviously, there would be exceptions to this rule, but let the exception pay out of his/her pocket first and then recover the cost from the government by providing accurate documentation for the need for the upgrade.
Does the Federal government negotiate any discounts for volume use?
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 179
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:28 am |
|
|
|
| Torti wrote: | And how much will it cost for the bureauocracy to police the use of public funds for air travel? It would probably cost more to review and recover what improper funding was used than would be prevented or recouped. And the US taxpayer would be stuck with yet another agency to pay.
One solution is that the Federal government should only pay for coach seating and any upgrades should be paid for by the individual traveler. Obviously, there would be exceptions to this rule, but let the exception pay out of his/her pocket first and then recover the cost from the government by providing accurate documentation for the need for the upgrade.
Does the Federal government negotiate any discounts for volume use? |
You would think that they would. Didn't the White House at one time have a travel office? It is hard to believe that an airline would not give some discount to the gov't for volume travel.
I think that your idea is a good oneabout being reimbursed except that unless the employee flies frequently, the cost of an upgrade to business or first is going to be quite expensive.
The employees cheating the government should not be reimbursed at all, but I still believe that government employees who are required to fly perhaps to Europe -- a 7 or 8 hour flight, should be allowed some comfort. It is not a perk. Their job requires them to be on the flight, and they should be allowed comfort.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6979
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| olympic
Posted:
Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:29 pm |
|
|
|
| Torti wrote: | And how much will it cost for the bureauocracy to police the use of public funds for air travel? It would probably cost more to review and recover what improper funding was used than would be prevented or recouped. And the US taxpayer would be stuck with yet another agency to pay.
One solution is that the Federal government should only pay for coach seating and any upgrades should be paid for by the individual traveler. Obviously, there would be exceptions to this rule, but let the exception pay out of his/her pocket first and then recover the cost from the government by providing accurate documentation for the need for the upgrade.
Does the Federal government negotiate any discounts for volume use? |
torti i hear what you say, after the fact it always costs the people more, for some inquiry to be conducted....isn't that the truth, we've seen a few of these haven't we.
the government has people already in place who authorize these expense accounts, its just that the very same people are given too much authority, and then don't do their job.....they prefer to initial it, and or sign on the dotted line, and call it a job done....then an internal audit happens, and we discover what went on...simply put its taxpayers coin, why worry... just raise the taxes next year and all will be fine.
|
|
Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 2114
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
�
Jasidogdotcom template v.1.0.4 © jasidog.com
Powered by phpBB
© 2001, 2004 phpBB Group
|
