GAB Decision 108
July 3, 1980 Community Relations - Social Development Commission in
Milwaukee County; Docket No. 77-12 Dell'Acqua, Frank; Woodruff, Robert
Yourman, Edwin
The Grantee was established by the city and county of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin and two school boards as a community action and
intergovernmental planning agency. The Commission is governed by 24
individuals, made up of representatives of the governmental units and
others representative of the views of labor, business, clergy and
families with low income.
This appeal concerns disallowances in three Juvenile Delinquency
Diversion Project grants which authorized a total of $504,757 in Federal
Funds, subject to a one-fourth sharing from non-Federal sources. The
project activities covered the period June 30, 1972 to October 1, 1975.
Audit disallowances of claimed Federal share expenditures and
non-acceptance of claimed non-Federal sharing resulted in a
determination by the Deputy Regional Administrator for the Office of
Human Development Services, the administering agency at the Federal
level, that the Grantee has been overpaid by a total of $159,093 in the
three grants, and the Grantee was requested to refund that amount.
The disallowances are based on the Grantee's failure to document an
indirect cost rate, actual costs incurred by three local schools
providing services, work done by employees who devoted time to the grant
project as well as to other activities of the Grantee, actual
administrative costs, and actual expenditures attributable to the
non-Federal share requirement. In addition, $5,199 was disallowed
because of the purchase of legal services in excess of the maximums
specified in the contracts for such purchases.
On December 28, 1978, the Panel Chairman issued an Order to Clarify
the Record. Attached to that Order was a summary of the disallowances
which described the Agency and Grantee positions. In addition, the
Panel Chairman provided comments which reflect his views on the basis of
the record before him at that time.
The Panel Chairman agreed that the Grantee had failed to document its
expenditures properly and that the contrat maximums had been exceeded in
the purchase of the legal services, thus justifying the disallowances as
the record then stood. He felt, however, that the Grantee should be
given 90 days during which it would have another opportunity to provide
proper documentation. The Grantee requested extentions of time for the
preparation of its submittal. The regional office of the Office of
Human Development Services also requested extensions. As a result, the
final comments were not transmitted to the Board until May 5, 1980.
We find that the record is now complete, there is no dispute as to a
material fact, the parties have had notice of the issues to be
considered, and they have had full opportunity to make presentations on
them. We, therefore, proceed to our decision.
Despite the eighteen months which have elapsed since issuance of the
Panel Chairman's Order to Clarify the Record, the Grantee has submitted
nothing which is worthy of discussion. The Panel Chairman emphasized
that, as of December 28, the Grantee had demonstrated an inability to
accept, or lack of understanding of, the purposes and necessity of
fiscal accountability. His comments also pointed out that amounts as
budgeted are not acceptable evidence of amounts expended. Despite that,
the Grantee has failed to submit any meaningful documentation. The only
thing which indicated any effort at documentation was the submittal of a
memorandum dated January 16, 1980 to which was attached the Athletes for
Youth Program budget. It purports to show amounts budgeted and in-kind
contributions in the form of donated time, services and equipment.
There was no showing that the expenditures were made or that the
contributions were in fact applied to the program. Nor was there any
showing of reliability for this "budget" listing made more than seven
years after the project started and more than four years after it
terminated. Since we give no weight to it, we will not concern
ourselves with a number of arithmetical errors on the face of the
material.
The Grantee's position continues to be that it conducted the
activities contemplated by the grant arrangement and, therefore, is
entitled to the grant funds. The continued assertions of such a clearly
unacceptable position is a waste of time for the Grantee and all others
involved in the grant process.
The Panel adopts the views expressed by the Chairman in the Order to
Clarify the Record. We cannot ignore the obligations of the Grantee to
provide acceptable evidence that it has expended the funds advanced in
accordance with the applicable conditions. 45 CFR 16.8(b). We find
that the Grantee has failed to provide any basis for the allowance of
any amount in question. Accordingly, the appeal of the $159,093
disallowance is denied.
OCTOBER 04, 1983