I disagree with about half of Ritchie's articles, but this is a true gotcha article and very illuminating.
I know at least one Board member is steaming over this. At prior Board meetings I have attended, the Board spent time analyzing travel costs and implemented a number of spending caps, but I think...
they missed this type of spending loophole. In my opinion, the Board AND staff have been much better at analyzing and cutting costs than the County Board of Commissioners.
So, here are some background stories about government travel vs business travel practices, followed by my conclusion & recommendations about this incident:
In the 1970's, I worked for five years as an auditor for the County of Los Angeles. At one time, I was in charge of auditing all County concession agreements, which meant any cafeteria "renting" space in County buildings, all of Marina del Rey (owned by the County at the time), and even several small County airports. Most tenants had to pay a percent of their sales for rent, thus we had to audit and make sure they calculated rent correctly.
We rarely got any travel budget, but drove on a daily basis anywhere in Los Angeles County, and got paid mileage from the office location in downtown LA. Our commuting time was before or after regular work hours. There was no "travel time". One time, I was assigned to audit a small County airport in Lancaster, California, and they allowed me a small per diem which got me a cheap motel room and hamburgers. I even inspected the revenue records for the mechanic at one airport who rebuilt the engine for John Travolta's private plane - that was when he was Vinnie on Welcome Back Mr. Kotter.
Anyway, the next year, around 1979, I went to work for ARCO, the oil company, when oil had hit $30 a barrel, and they were making money hand over fist. We flew first class anywhere that was over two hours away, which meant Denver or Dallas or Seattle. There was no limit on dinner expense, and it was not uncommon to meet with co-workers and spend $100 per night on food at least 1-2 times a week. We all had rental cars. If five guys went to audit an oil refinery construction firm in San Francisco, we each got a rental car. We stayed in company approved 4 or 5 star hotels.
Later, I worked at an 1800 employee Construction Materials holding company HQ and our expenses were not as excessive (no first class anywhere), but as a Director, I could entertain staff with dinner at facilities I visited, and it was expected. That firm's profits were quite good, and travel expenses for the HQ staff were not considered significant, especially when auditing would usually save a million or more per year in costs through performance audits.
One time I went to a regional staff meeting in Kansas City. The Marriott was full, and long lines at each check in counter. It turned out to be a conference for teachers, and most of them had booked FOUR teachers to a room, so there were many more people than usual since they were trying to save costs AND pay separately. We checked out when they did, and they were all arguing about who would pay the taxes, phones or the in-room liquor fees. Some had absolutely no extra cash, and the hotel was bogged down in explaining all the typical, hidden fees for phones, etc.
Then, I worked for a software firm that was going public. I even traveled to HONG KONG, Singapore and Vancouver - all expensive cities, and was entertained (diners, lunch...) by the staff there. My hotel room in Hong Kong was on the 70th floor of a hotel overlooking the harbor, and even in the 1980's, the room probably cost over $200 per night. But, after auditing found the reason why the international office was losing $2-million per quarter, and reversed it, they never quibbled about expenses.
Later, I worked as a software consultant for IBM and they really kept a tab on travel costs, since my project was for the Federal government and we had to follow their spending guidelines. Frequent travel to Washington, DC resulted in staying at "approved" hotels 20 miles outside of DC and riding the subway to work. Meal per diem never covered the real costs unless you truly ate pizza each night.
Then, when I worked for the US State Dept in Iraq, they forced us to take 2am flights out of Amman, Jordan to get the "red eye" discount, and then holdover in the airport without an overnight hotel stay in Frankfurt for anywhere from 4-11 hours to get a cheaper flight to DC. If I had to attend training in Washington, DC , I would have to pay for the hotel myself.
So, the acceptance of high expense accounts and travel costs vary considerably by who you work for, and how well they define acceptable travel expense categories.
BUT, ALL THE EMPLOYERS ABOVE HAD POLICIES THAT CLEARLY TOLD THE EMPLOYEES THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RATE FOR HOTEL AND OTHER TRAVEL COSTS.
Conclusion
Since I have attended most Board meetings and budget workshops for the last four years, I know that the School District staff has been very strict on most travel expenses, requiring Board approval of even travel paid by grants or personal funds, I consider this to be a big, one off mistake that someone made, and should not reflect on the credibility of the staff. Many of the staff have cut expenses to the bone. It could even be a situation where a middle level staffer was told to find rooms at an alternate site when the main hotel was booked, and rushed to meet a deadline and they didn't think to ask the cost, and maybe didn't even know that the Ritz was an expensive place.
But, it is clear that the District's travel approval process needs improvement, because if the price per room night exceeded the allowable daily rate in the travel policy of ANY of my prior employers, they, and their travel agency would never have approved the trip. AND, the employee would be subject to an expense policy that said if they exceeded the current allowable rates, they would have to pay the difference. Apparently, no such policy exists in the District, or it was ignored.
Recommendations
1. Someone clearly didn't have the judgment ( or adequate supervision) to realize what they were doing when approving the expensive hotel they did, and I think they now know not to do it again.
2. School Superintendent Dr. Moxley probably has learned not to give informal answers to Lauren Ritchie until she gets the fact on situations like this. Maybe that new Public Information Officer will help prevent unguarded comments.
3. I would suggest revising any travel policy to put employees on notice about the maximum allowable rates per person for various travel expenses, AND make sure that all grant recipients follow the same rules. Be clear that the employee pays any difference over the defined limits, thus they will raise the issue if assigned to more expensive facilities. (I am thinking the District staff prepaid the bill in one big check, and didn't have the employees file separate expense reports for room expenses.).
vj
