Hmmmmm
The “questioned amount” the inspector general’s office identifies for possible recovery is the $123,941 that taxpayers spent on flying both Pruitt and a security agent in first- or business class, instead of coach.
At first glance one would say — pay it back.
Then you see this:
The “questioned amount” the inspector general’s office identifies for possible recovery is the $123,941 that taxpayers spent on flying both Pruitt and a security agent in first- or business class, instead of coach.
Sounds like protocols need to be change a little according to the inspector general.
the agency had a long-standing policy of allowing travel other than coach class. Its general counsel’s office had issued an opinion determining that the acting controller “had the authority to grant first-class exceptions. Therefore, in evaluating the delegation EPA believes that the trips were authorized by an appropriate official, making cost recovery inappropriate.”
Whooooops . . . . . so a long standing policy of allowing travel other than coad (that would be business and/or first class, and it might have been approved by the acting controller.
Hmmmm now we start to get to the maybe not part of the argument.
Looks like it’s not as fine a line of yes he should pay it back.
Sounds like its time to change the long standing policy and put in policy when and under what conditions employee’s of the department can fly other than coach.
