GAB Decision 499
Docket No. 83-206
January 19, 1984
Oglala Sioux Tribe;
Ballard, Judith; Garrett, Donald Teitz, Alexander
The Oglala Sioux Tribe (Grantee) appealed the disallowance by the
Administration for Native Americans (ANA, Agency) of $6,864 in costs
claimed under ANA grant no. 80993/08 for the program year ended
September 30, 1981. ANA funds are awarded to Grantees for programs
which promote the economic and social self sufficiency of Native
Americans. See, 45 CFR 1336 (1980).
The Agency had disallowed these costs because Grantee failed to
respond to the auditors' recommendations to disallow these costs for
inadequate documentation. (Audit report no. 08-35062) Grantee was
provided the opportunity to submit its documentation to the Board.
During the course of this appeal, the Agency withdrew $360.17 of its
disallowance based on information submitted by Grantee. $6,504 remains
in dispute. /1/
Based on our analysis of the record, we uphold the disallowance of
$5,476 and grant the appeal of $1,028.
I. Discussion of the disallowed costs.
A. $323 for "overstated claims that lacked supporting documentation."
The audit report, on page 15, identified disputed travel costs of
$322.50 as:
254.75 of $801.57 claimed for Bat Pourier (traveler paid in excess
of per diem allowable and paid mileage for entire trip in
addition to air fare for part of trip) 17.50 of $416.25
claimed for Lindy Trueblood (traveler paid in excess of per diem
allowable) n2 50.25 of $352.69 claimed for Bat Pourier
(traveler paid in excess of per diem allowable)
(2) 1. $254.75 in travel costs and excess per diem.
In support of this claim, Grantee submitted a copy of the check,
dated July 7, 1981, which had a notation that the funds were for Mr.
Pourier to travel to Moline, Illinois to meet with John Deere personnel.
The notation also indicated that the amount advanced was for $54 in
mileage (240 miles at 22.5 cents per mile); roundtrip airfare of
$586.00; taxis $50.00; and per diem of $111.57. Grantee also
submitted a travel authorization, dated June 30, 1981, with the same
information and a form indicating flight reservations from Rapid City,
South Dakota to Moline for July 12, 1981, returning July 15, 1981. Mr.
Pourier executed an affidavit, dated July 13, 1983, which said that he
traveled to Moline on July 11-15, 1981, in his capacity as Director for
the ANA program and that he spent the funds for travel purposes
associated with his duties as Director.
As indicated above, the Agency disallowed $254.75 of this amount.
The Agency explained that Mr. Pourier drove from Pine Ridge to
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for non-grant related reasons, and then flew from
Milwaukee to Moline. Grantee did not dispute this. The Agency said it
allowed for mileage 1500 miles (roundtrip from Pine Ridge to Moline
without a detour to Milwaukee) and disallowed the $211 cost of a
roundtrip airfare from Milwaukee to Moline. See, Confirmation of
Telephone Conferences, dated January 9, 1984. The Agency also said it
disallowed $43.75 as excess per diem claimed for Mr. Pourier's trip
because, although Grantee claimed per diem for the period from July 11
to 16, 1981, Grantee did not document that Mr. Pourier was on grant
related business on July 15 and 16.
We uphold the Agency's disallowance of these costs. The information
Grantee submitted to the Board implied that Mr. Pourier drove from Pine
Ridge to Rapid City, then flew from Rapid City to Moline (and returned
in the same manner), but Grantee later admitted that this was not the
case. Grantee submitted no information to justify the trip to Milwaukee
and did not argue that the trip to Milwaukee served grant purposes.
Grantee did not respond to Agency charges that Mr. Pourier was not on
grant related business on the days for which per diem was questioned by
the Agency.
The Board has consistently held that a grantee has the burden to
document expenditures. See, e.g., Denver Native Americans United,
Decision No. 418, April 29, 1983; Urban Indian Health Board, Inc.,
Decision No. 315, June 28, 1982; and New York Department of Social
Services, Decision No. 204, August 7, 1981. Federal regulations clearly
require that expenditures be supported with adequate documentation. 45
CFR 74.61 (1980). Further, we have said that it is a fundamental
principle of grant administration that a grantee must (3) document that
claimed expenditures were reasonable and were incurred to further the
purposes of the grant. Bullock County Health Services Inc, Decision No.
360, November 20, 1982, p. 1. Since Grantee has not submitted any
information to show that it was reasonable to claim for more than the
cost of mileage directly to Moline, and has not documented that Mr.
Pourier was on grant related business for all days for which per diem
was claimed, we uphold this portion of the disallowance.
2. $50.25 in excess per diem.
Grantee admitted that $50.25 was paid in excess of allowable per diem
and said that recovery of the $50.25 is being solicited. See, Appeal
Brief, December 14, 1983, p. 1. Since Grantee stated no basis for
overturning this portion of the disallowance, we uphold the Agency's
action.
B. $369 for a "duplicate claim."
The audit report, at page 16, identified a duplicate payment of
$369.10 paid to the Oglala Trading Post. Grantee said that the $369.10
was a "payment to a wrong party" and said that repayment was being
solicited from the person responsible for the wrong payment. Appeal
Brief, p. 1. With its Notice of Appeal, Grantee submitted documentation
to show that Grantee had inadvertently made a duplicate payment to the
Trading Post when its bank did not stop payment on the first of two
checks issued to the Post. Grantee made no arguments why this
disallowance should not be upheld. Since Grantee admitted that $369.10
was a duplicate claim, there is no basis for granting this portion of
the appeal.
C. $3,000 for "expenditures that did not appear to be related to the
project."
The audit report, on page 16, identified $3,000 in "sanitation
expenditures for an unrecognized community located off the reservation,"
questioning the costs because the "ANA work program did not provide for
such off reservation expenditures." Documentation submitted by Grantee
indicated that the funds were expended to pay for chemical toilets for
"Wind Cave meetings on Black Hill treaties." Grantee did not dispute
the
Agency's characterization of this expenditure. Instead, Grantee said it
has "taken the amount under advisement." Appeal Brief, p. 1. The Board
informed Grantee that unless it submitted information or arguments to
support costs which it had "under advisement," the disalloance would
be
upheld. See, Acknowledgement of Notice of Appeal. Since Grantee
provided no further information or arguments, there is no basis for the
Board to grant this portion of the appeal.
(4) D. $3,172 for "expenditures that lacked supporting documentation."
The audit report, at pages 14-15, identified unsupported travel and
supply costs charged to the grant. The auditors said that without
supporting documentation, they could not determine if the expenses were
reasonable, allocable, and allowable. The Agency disallowed the
following (of which $2,829 remains in dispute):
$2,123 for travel advances outstanding to Bat Pourier, Sharon Cuny,
Ferdinand Romero, Lindy Trueblood, Marvin Amiotte n3 608
for travel advances to consultants for which there were no receipts
or billings from the consultants (for Elaine DeCory,
Frederick White Face, Charles Lafferty) 300 for traveler
reimbursed gas money without supporting documentation (Cecil Bear
Robe) for Cohen Memorial Home 141 supplies - payment to
Copy Country without supporting documentation n4
In support of the disallowance, the Agency quoted the following from
Colorado Department for Social Services, Decision No. 435, May 31, 1983,
p. 6: "Where, as here, the documentation does not on its face establish
the appellant's case, the burden extends to providing a clear
explanation of why documents presented would support a given
expenditure." The Agency argued that Grantee's documentation was
insufficient because Grantee relied in large part on affidavits which
were written two years after the travel occurred and which were vague
about the purpose of the travel and how the funds were spent. Agency's
Brief, p. 4. The Agency did not, however, individually address the
documentation submitted for each claim.
As we said above, regulations require that Grantee maintain adequate
records to support its claims with source documentation, such as
cancelled checks, receipts, etc. 45 CFR 74.61 (1980). Based on our
analysis of the record, we find that, although much of the documentation
submitted was not as specific as we would like, Grantee did (5) support
some of the claimed expenses. The affidavits, which affirmed that the
person traveled to a specific destination for grant purposes, were
written after the fact and were, by themselves, too vague. However, the
affidavits were often supported by a copy of the travel advance check
and a travel authorization, which indicated the purpose of the travel
and provided a breakdown of the anticipated expenses. To reach our
decision, we considered together the documentation written prior to the
expenditure of the travel funds and the affidavits. As explained below,
of $2,829 in dispute we find in the record documentation which
reasonably supported $1,027.51. We uphold the disallowance of the
remaining amount, $1,801.50.
1. $2,123 for outstanding travel advances.
Bat Pourier: $351.75. In support of this claim, Grantee submitted a
copy of the check, dated January 14, 1981, which had a notation that the
funds were advanced for Mr. Pourier to attend a "meeting with US
Geological Survey and contacting federal funding agencies for the Tribe"
in Denver, Colorado. It also indicated that the amount claimed was for
mileage (670 miles at 22.5 cents per mile) of $150.75 and per diem of
$201. Grantee also submitted a copy of a travel authorization, dated
January 12, 1981, which included the same information. Mr. Pourier
executed an affidavit, dated July 13, 1983, which said that he traveled
to Denver on January 14, 1981, in his capacity as Director of the ANA
program and that he spent these funds for travel purposes associated
with his duties as Director.
We find that the record supports Grantee's claim for these costs.
Grantee submitted several pieces of documentation which explained the
purpose and the location of the travel for which funds were advanced.
In the affidavit, Mr. Pourier affirms that the travel did occur. The
Agency did not argue that the purpose of the trip was not grant related
or that 670 miles does not reasonably represent the roundtrip distance
between Pine Ridge and Denver. We find that an uncontradicted statement
about the distance between the location of departure and the destination
is reasonable documentation of mileage. Therefore, we uphold the appeal
for the mileage costs. Further, Grantee's claim for $201 per diem is
upheld. The audit report explained, at page 16, that "the travel
policies of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, which are followed by the Native
American Program, reimburse the traveler at the maximum rate provided by
federal regulations based on quarter days in travel status. . . ."
Although the auditors recommended that the Program consider amending its
travel policies, they did not state that this procedure was improper.
According to both the travel authorization and the affidavit, Mr.
Pourier was on travel for the 18 quarters claimed.
(6) Lindy Trueblood: $339.19. In support of this claim, Grantee
submitted a copy of the check, dated June 2, 1981, with a notation that
the $339.19 was for Ms. Trueblood to attend a seminar on foreign
investments in Denver, Colorado. The notation on the check indicated
that the amount claimed was for mileage (670 miles at 22.5 cents per
mile) of $150.75 and per diem of $188.44. Grantee also submitted a copy
of a travel authorization, dated June 1, 1981, which included that same
information. Ms. Trueblood executed an affidavit, dated July 13, 1983,
which said that she traveled to Denver on January 3-6, 1981, in her
capacity as Clearinghouse Specialist and that she spent the funds for
travel purposes associated with her duties as Clearinghouse Specialist.
We find that the record supports Grantee's claim for these costs. As
we said above, Grantee submitted information which by affidavit affirmed
that the trip was taken and provided specific information about the
purpose and location of the travel in the documents explaining the
travel advance. For the reasons stated above for Mr. Pourier, we
uphold this portion of the appeal.
Sharon Cuny: $340.25. In support of this claim, Grantee submitted a
copy of a travel authorization dated April 25, 1981 which indicated that
the amount was for Ms. Cuny "to attend a training session on T/ TA,"
in
Washington, D.C., and the $65.25 was for mileage (290 miles at 17 cents
per mile); $50 for "Taxi, Limousine, Bus;" and $225 for per diem.
The
record also included an accountant's voucher reflecting that amount.
Grantee also submitted a copy of an airline ticket for travel from Rapid
City to Washington, D.C. on April 26-28, 1983. Ms. Cuny executed an
affidavit on July 11, 1983, which said that she traveled to Washington,
D.C. on April 26-29 in her capacity as ANA Secretary and that she spent
these funds for travel purposes associated with her duties as Secretary.
We find that the record supports Grantee's claim for the per diem
costs, but not for the taxi and mileage costs. The airline ticket shows
that Ms. Cuny traveled to Washington, D.C. and the affidavit states that
it was for grant related business. (The cost of the airfare was not at
issue here.) Although the nature of the training is unclear, the Agency
did not argue that this training was not grant related. The travel
authorization and the affidavit support her claim for per diem for 16
hours. The record does not, however, support the other costs claimed.
Grantee did not provide any information about where Ms. Cuny traveled by
automobile; therefore, we can not determine whether the $65.25 for
mileage is allowable. Further, although Grantee claimed $65.25 for 290
miles at 17 cents per mile, 290 multiplied by .17 equals 49.30, not the
$65.25. (290 times 22.5 cents per mile equals $65.25.) Further Grantee
has provided no explanation or documentation accounting for the "Taxi,
Limousine, Bus" expenditures. Without such (7) explanation and
documentation, we must uphold the disallowance of those costs.
Therefore, of $340.25 claimed for Ms. Cuny we uphold the disallowance
of $115.25 and grant the appeal of $225 in per diem costs.
Marvin Amiotte: $751.57. In support of this claim, Grantee submitted
a copy of a check, dated July 7, 1981, with a notation that the $751.57
was for Mr. Amiotte to travel to Moline, Illinois "to meet with John
Deere personnel." The check indicated that the amount claimed was for
mileage (240 miles at 22.5 cents per mile) of $54.00; airplane fare of
$588; and per diem of $111.57. Grantee also submitted a travel
authorization, dated June 30, 1981, which included the same information
and a form indicating a flight schedule from Rapid City through Denver
to Moline for July 12, 1981 and returning on July 15. Mr. Amiotte
executed an affidavit, dated July 11, 1983, which said that he traveled
to Moline, Illinois on July 11-15, 1981, in his capacity as Grantee's
attorney and that he spent the funds for travel purposes associated with
his duties as Grantee's attorney.
We find that Grantee has not adequately documented its claim for all
of these costs. Grantee submitted no evidence which shows that Mr.
Amiotte in fact drove from Pine Ridge to Rapid City and flew from Rapid
City to Moline. Grantee did not submit a copy of the airline ticket, or
any other receipts to show that Grantee incurred these costs. Grantee
submitted the same type of documentation to support travel to Moline by
Mr. Pourier (see part I.A..1. of this decision), and, in that case,
Grantee admitted that Mr. Pourier did not, in fact, travel by air.
Although the record does not indicate that Mr. Amiotte drove with Mr.
Pourier, there is also no information documenting that he traveled by
air. Without such information in the affidavit or in the supporting
documentation, we must uphold the disallowance of these travel costs
($640).
We have decided, however, to allow the per diem costs. Although the
Agency argued that this trip was totally undocumented, Mr. Amiotte did
affirm by affidavit that he traveled to meet with John Deere personnel
on grant related business during the days in question. Even though we
do not accept the affidavit as sufficent to show how the transportation
funds were spent, we do accept the affidavit as evidence that Mr.
Amiotte took the trip for purposes associated with his duties as
Grantee's attorney. Further, it appears that Mr. Amiotte traveled to
Moline at the same time as Grantee's Director, Mr. Pourier. The Agency
did not challenge that the purpose of Mr. Pourier's travel was grant
related, and the Agency made no specific allegation that Mr. Amiotte's
purpose in accompanying the Director was not grant related. The Agency
said only that there was no documentation to support this trip, a
determination with which we disagree in part. Therefore, we allow the
$111.17 in per diem costs.
(8) 2. $608 for travel advances to consultants.
Elaine DeCory: $131.25. In support of this claim, Grantee submitted
a copy of the check, dated July 24, 1981, with a notation that the
$131.25 was for Ms. DeCory "to attend Remote Sensing Workshop Exercises
by Application Banck, EROS," in Sioux Falls, South Dakota on July 28-31,
1981. The check indicated $131.25 was claimed for per diem costs.
Grantee also submitted a copy of a travel authorization, dated July 23,
1981, which included the same information. Ms. DeCory executed an
affidavit, dated July 10, 1983, which said that she traveled to Sioux
Falls on July 24, 1981, in her capacity as a planner aide and that she
spent funds for travel purposes associated with her duties as a planner
aide.
Charles Lafferty: $174.00. In support of this claim, Grantee
submitted documentation similar to that for Ms. DeCory. Mr. Lafferty
said in an affidavit that he attended the workshop in his capacity as a
drafter/researcher. In addition to the $131.25 for per diem, Mr.
Lafferty was advanced $42.75 for mileage (190 miles at 22.5 per mile).
Frederick White Face: $303.15. The record indicates that Mr. White
Face also received a travel advance to cover costs for this training
session. The documentation is similar to that submitted for Ms. DeCory
and Mr. Lafferty, with the exception that, in addition to $131.25 for
per diem, he was advanced $171.90 for mileage (764 miles at 22.5 cents
per mile). In his affidavit, Mr. White Face said he attended the
workshop in his capacity as a planning consultant.
We find that Grantee has not adequately documented these costs. The
auditors specifically stated that these costs were questioned because
the travel was by consultants and Grantee did not document the
consultant services. See, Audit report, pp. 14, 19. The auditors said
they had encountered problems determining whether consulting services
were ever provided or provided in time to benefit the program. Grantee
did not provide any information to show that the consultants' travel
benefited the grant. Further, Grantee did not provide information to
show how the amount of the mileage for Mr. Lafferty and Mr. White Face
was determined. Without more information about the consultants'
services or the mileage costs claimed, the $608 disallowed for
consultants' travel most be upheld.
3. $300 for gas allowance paid to Cecil Bear Robe.
In support of this claim, Grantee submitted a copy of the check,
dated August 19, 1981, with a notation that the $300 was for Mr. Bear
Robe "to drive truck for pick up and delivery of donations to be sold
and the proceeds to go to the Cohen Home." The check indicated that the
$300 was for truck fuel. Grantee also submitted a travel authorization,
dated August 19, 1981, which included the same information. (9) Mr. Bear
Robe executed an affidavit, dated July 11, 1983, which said that he
traveled to Moline, Illinois on August 21-23 in his capacity as a truck
driver, and that he spent these funds for travel purposes associated
with his duties as truck driver.
We find that the documentation submitted by Grantee is not adedquate
to show the amount of money expended for truck fuel to Moline. Grantee
submitted no receipts for the gasoline costs advanced. Further,
although the record shows the roundtrip distance to Moline is 1500
miles, Grantee submitted no information about the price of gasoline at
the time or the average miles per gallon for the truck. The affidavit
submitted was too vague and general to support this claim. We can not
uphold this appeal based on a general statement that the funds were
spent, without any documentation or other specific information about how
the funds were spent (how many gallons? what price gas?). Therefore,
we uphold the disallowance of $300 for undocumented gasoline costs.
II. Conclusion.
Based on the analysis above, we uphold the disallowance of $5,476 and
grant the appeal of $1,028. /1/ We have rounded off the total amount
because the amounts disallowed were rounded off when disallowed.
/2/ Grantee said that Lindy Trueblood repaid the $17.50 disallowed. The
Agency agreed and reduced the disallowance by that amount. /3/
Grantee said that Mr. Romero has repaid the cost of his trip ($340.25).
The Agency agreed that Mr. Romero had paid $202 of his trip and adjusted
the disallowance by that amount. Since Grantee only presented
information to show that $202 had been repaid, and has not argued any
part of the trip was allowable, we uphold the disallowance of the
remaining costs of the trip ($138.25). See, Appeal file for copy of
money order of $202 to Grantee from Mr. Romero. /4/ The Agency
accepted Grantee's documentation of the claim for $140.67 paid to Copy
Country and reduced the disallowance by that amount.
NOVEMBER 14, 1984