Memorandum

You have asked for my advice as to whether, as a general matter, appropriated funds legally may be used to purchase "trinkets" of negligible value (e.g., pens, pencils, tee shirts, caps, mugs, etc.) to be given away as incentives or awards for Combined Federal Campaign ("CFC") keyworkers and coordinators; and decorative items (such as balloons and banners) and refreshments (such as coffee and doughnuts) for kick-off rallies, meetings, and other CFC events. I conclude generally that appropriated funds legally may be used for these purposes, but that such uses -- particularly those involving provision of meals and refreshments -- ordinarily are not favored.1/

The answer to your question turns, as an initial matter, on 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a), which requires that appropriated funds "be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made. " Absent some clear statutory command to the contrary, this statute consistently has been determined to permit an appropriation to

be used to pay any expense that is necessary or incident to the achievement of the underlying objectives for which the appropriation was made. If [an] agency believes that the expenditure bears a logical relationship to the objectives of the . . . appropriation, and will make a direct contribution to the agency's mission, the appropriation may be used.[2/]

The power to determine whether or not a proposed expenditure is reasonably or logically connected or "necessary" to an appropriation's purposes lies within the sound discretion of the agency served by the appropriation.3/ Therefore, as a rule any Departmental appropriation is legally available to pay for CFC-related trinkets, decorative items, and refreshments if the Department reasonably determines that the proposed expenditure is logically connected to the appropriation's purposes, and if no statute prohibits it.

This office has concluded that there is no statutory prohibition against the use of appropriated funds to pay any reasonable expenses (including meals/refreshments) involved in the attendance or participation of any federal employee at or in any meeting, and I know of no statute that prohibits the use of such funds to pay for "trinkets" under the circumstances you describe.4/

Because your question is posed in general terms (i.e., without specifying any particular appropriation to be charged), I have not undertaken to review all of the Department's many appropriations to see which may actually be available as a legal matter to pay for the CFC-related items you ask about. Suffice it to say, for purposes of your general question, that this office will not question lightly the facially-reasonable judgment of the manager of an appropriation sought to be charged that expenses of this sort are logically-connected or "necessary" to the appropriation's purposes.

In my opinion, given the absence of any relevant statutory prohibition, if the manager of an appropriation reasonably finds these CFC-related expenses to be "necessary" to further the purposes of the appropriation, then the expenditure legally may be authorized. This having been said, however, it should be stressed that expenditures may be legal, but imprudent or unwise in the context in which they are made. In making the determination, therefore, managers should be mindful of all the surrounding circumstances, including the amount of the proposed expenditure, the quantum of benefit expected to be gained thereby, the importance of that benefit to the mission served by the appropriation, prior Departmental practice, and possible public perceptions as to the appropriateness of the expenditure.

1/  A Departmental policy to govern the use of appropriated funds to provide meals or refreshments to employees currently is being drafted.

2/  10 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 6, 8 (1986) (citation omitted).

3/  See, e.g., 34 Op. Att'y Gen. 320, 326 (1924); accord, e.g., 63 Comp. Gen. 110, 112 (1983).

4/  The Comptroller General would not agree with these conclusions. See 1 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law 4-29 to -42, -128 to -131 (2d ed. 1991). Nonetheless, the Comptroller General is an accounting officer of the legislative branch, and as such, his opinions on the legitimacy of given expenditures are indications of the sorts of expenditures that he will or will not question; while his views may be considered as a matter of comity by executive-branch officials, he has no authority to issue legal opinions binding upon the executive branch. See Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 727 - 32 (1986) Smith v. Jackson, 246 id. 388, 389 - 91 (1918), aff'g. 241 F. 747, 757 - 59, 771 - 74 (5th Cir. 1917); 20 Op. Att'y Gen. 654, 655 (1893); 37 id. 562, 563 (1934); id. 543, 544 (1934); 8 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 236, 239 - 41 (1984).

Return to the TOP