GAB Decision 399
Docket No. 82-212
March 23, 1983
Medina County Commissioners Court;
Garrett, Donald; Teitz, Alexander Ford, Cecilia
Medina County Commissioners' Court of Hondo, Texas (Medina County,
Grantee) appealed a decision by a Public Health Service (PHS) grant
appeals committee (Committee) sustaining a disallowance of $15,339.86 in
salary and related fringe benefits paid to a former projbect director
during the period October 20, 1980 through May 27, 1981. The Committee
based its decision on the lack of time and attendance records or other
documentation to support the $15,339.86.
Since the dispute concerns an amount under $25,000, and Grantee
received a review by a grant appeals committee before coming to this
Board, the Board's special expedited review procedures applied. 45 CFR
16.12(d). Thus, we reviewed the record in this case to determine
whether the Committee's decision was clearly erroneous. Section 16.12(
d)(1).
This dispute arose because during a period of approximately seven
months following the resignation of its project director, Grantee paid
that individual $15,339.86 in salary and related fringe benefits not
supported by documentation. The project director had resigned October
20, 1980, to become administrator of a local hospital, but also
continued as acting project director for Grantee through May 27, 1981.
Although as early as March 1980 PHS requested time and attendance or
equivalent records to support salary expenditures for all employees,
Grantee has not furnished any documentation to support the amount in
dispute here. *
(2) PHS contended that as a local government agency, Medina County
was required by 45 CFR Part 74, App. C. II.B.10.G (1978) and by the PHS
Grants Policy Statement (p. 24) to document payroll expenditures with
time and attendance or equivalent records for all employees. Copies of
Part 74 and the Policy Statement were enclosed with the initial grant
award transmitted to Medina County on September 24, 1979. PHS also
pointed to a letter it received from the project director dated June 30,
1980, enclosing a statement of policy requiring time and attendance
records for Grantee's employees.
Grantee argued that the Medina County Health System, Inc. (Health
System) was the grantee and that as a private non-profit corporation,
Health System was not required to keep time and attendance records for
professional employees such as the project director. Attached to
Grantee's appeal brief was a copy of the articles of incorporation
describing Health System as a non-profit corporation.
The Board scheduled a conference call for January 19, 1983, in
response to a request by PHS for an opportunity to rebut Grantee's
appeal brief.Although he had agreed to the call, Grantee's attorney was
not available at the time of the call, nor did he respond to messages
left with his office.
By letter dated February 3, 1983, the Board directed Grantee to show
cause within 10 days of receipt of the letter why the Board should not
affirm the Committee decision. The Board noted that although Health
System had applied for the grant, it was awarded to the Medina County
Commissioner's Court, a local government agency. The Board also noted
that the record did not contain evidence of a subgrant, which might have
explained the role of Health System.
A U.S. Postal Service receipt shows that the Board's letter was
received by the Grantee on February 7, 1983. The Board received no
response to its Order.
Medina County did not deny that PHS rules applicable to this grant
required time and attendance records to support salaries for employees
of local government agencies. It did not controvert items in the record
showing that this grant was made to a local government agency and also
that Grantee had adopted a policy of requiring time and attendance (3)
records for all employees. In short, Grantee has failed to show that
there was any error in the Committee's decision, much less that the
decision was clearly erroneous.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing discussion, we affirm the PHS Committee
decision. * PHS also asked Grantee whether it paid its former project
director pursuant to a contract, apparently in an attempt to find
another basis for the expenditure.Grantee did not respond to that
question, so, based on the record before us, we conclude that there was
no contract.
SEPTEMBER 22, 1983