Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Sound advice
Next Post: Lake County could block video gaming expansion
Posted in:
* From comments yesterday…
As a purist/CPA/accountant wonk, it seems reasonable that any elected official should be required to use state resources when conducting state business including state travel, security, etc. If the official(s) wants to reimburse the state by making contributions to the GRF - that’s great. Otherwise, this commingling of private/public money is not appropriate.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 9:35 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Sound advice
Next Post: Lake County could block video gaming expansion
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If JB doesn’t accept his salary/benefits doesn’t essentially he make a contribution to the GRF? Doesn’t cover everything obviously but it’s something.
Also, the fact this is the biggest issue in his first six months shows how productive this legislative session was for him. Whether you support his policies or not he put Illinois on a path that looks more promising than what we have seen the past 20 years. Low standards to beat, but still it is substantial progress.
Comment by Almost the weekend Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 9:42 am
I guarantee you that your CPA/Accountant wonk friend not only has clients that spend their personal money on business-related expenses and then deducts it from their taxes.
I can pretty much guarantee you that your CPA/Accountant wonk friend spends their own personal money on business-related expenses and then deducts it from their taxes.
I am willing to wager that the Garrett’s do as well.
The fiscal management / live within your means argument is bunk.
Comment by Thomas Paine Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 9:44 am
I wonder how complicated it is to hire a chartered jet via the state procurement process. I mean, if you know you’ll need to travel in 6-8 months, going through the procurement process might be feasible. If you need to travel next week, you’re probably out of luck.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 9:45 am
An official using his/her own resources rather than public resources may not be “appropriate” (a legal term?); but what if there is an accident with injuries? Who is liable, the state or the official?
Comment by My New Handle Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 9:45 am
Maybe the state should investigate elected officials out of pocket spending and force them to accept reimbursement from GRF.
I propose this as some sort of purist as yet undefined.
Comment by Glenn Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 9:46 am
Nuts
Comment by The ‘Edge’ Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 9:47 am
I couldn’t have said it any better. Anything other than reimbursement to GRF could cause pay to play politics and IL has a great record when it comes to play things by the book- don’t we?
Comment by New Day IL Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 9:50 am
The state travel rules require an employee to use the cheapest mode of transportation available and pay for it themselves. There aren’t any rules against using personal vehicles. But if your personal vehicle isn’t the lowest cost transportation, then you can only be reimbursed for the lowest cost transportation. I don’t think there are any rules that force an employee to file for reimbursement. I could fly to Chicago on a personally chartered jet for state business myself, but would only be reimbursed for the cost of an Amtrak ticket. And if I don’t need that $20, it’s probably not worth the trouble of filing for reimbursement.
Comment by A Jack Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 9:50 am
I for one welcome people who save taxpayers money.
Comment by Anon E Moose Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 9:53 am
This seems to be the opinion of somebody who never leaves their desk. Traveling to State offices in my personal vehicle and not charging the state is my prerogative
Comment by Peorgie Tirebiyer Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 9:54 am
So my question is If something were to happen like a car accident and if there was a law suit who would take the financial responsibility? The individual or would they have coverage of the State? Work comp issue as well.
Comment by NothsideNoMore Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:01 am
As someone who works in government controls (outside of Illinois), this is a fair point. It’s incredibly important for a full accounting of all government activities and the payments for them, both for budgeting and for tracking ethics issues. However, as 47th ward points out, state procurement would be a nightmare and possibly an nonviable method for this sort of travel. So maybe there should be a paper trail of payments, maybe we should have documentation about who is on the plane, but I don’t think it’s really a serious enough problem to warrant a complicated accounting regime.
Comment by OutOfState Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:01 am
Public and private money in the same account?
Comment by Rabid Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:02 am
The state travel rules mostly exist to govern reimbursement of costs paid by employees. The penalty for breaking rules is to not be reimbursed. It is silly to view the rules as a cap on what you can spend to get the job done rather than a cap on total reimbursement. And Rich left out the part where the poster apparently began to suggest that he bores even himself with these concerns.
Comment by Simple Simon Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:04 am
Fair enough, but let’s not pretend that accountants are society’s experts on doing everything in the most practical or efficient ways.
Comment by Father Ted Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:07 am
==this commingling of private/public money is not appropriate==
If it isn’t costing the state anything, shouldn’t the elected official have the choice?
That’s like my choosing not to be reimbursed for mileage because it’s not worth the trouble.
Comment by Jocko Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:14 am
What are the arguments against the following: File the reimbursement paperwork but with an addendum saying reimbursement isn’t requested?
Seems like that could address the transparency issues and bring this practice inline with other state travel practices.
But if that wouldn’t work, I’m genuinely curious why it wouldn’t.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:14 am
Isn’t travel on state business subject to FOIA requests? Using your own dime to travel on “state business” is a great way to hide things. So much for transparency.
Comment by Angry Republican Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:18 am
The entire state travel approval/reimbursement process needs to be overhauled. I’ve never traveled on state business without spending some of my own money particularly for meals and elements of transportation, shuttles,etc. It takes hours of work time completing redundant forms begging for permission to travel after you’ve been told the travel is critical for department needs.
Comment by Johnnie F. Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:22 am
If we’re going to have government openness and transparency, we should have openness and transparency in all government expenses.
Comment by Just Me Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:24 am
A purist would to insist that the governor’s travels be strictly for government purposes and paid for by the government, while campaigning be done separately and paid for by campaign funding. Given the difficulty of distinguishing campaigning from governing for someone in elective office, I don’t see how you could hope to do this. Let him pay for his travels however he wants to. If he chooses to “pay his own way,” I can see making him do it through campaign funds that have to be accounted for publicly, but otherwise, please go away.
Comment by Whatever Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:26 am
I have read that 4 times and I still don’t see the problem.
Comment by Cheryl44 Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:32 am
==is a great way to hide things==
What is being hidden? Seems pretty out in the open to me right now.
This debate shouldn’t be a debate at all. We are really spending time on deciding whether he should be able to use his personal funds to travel? Who cares.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:34 am
A FOIA on a travel voucher is only going to show that an employee of the state traveled from point A to B, stayed a few days at a hotel and had meals along with miscellaneous expenses such as tips, and then went back to A. It really doesn’t say what the employee did or if the the employee went on any side trips that aren’t claimed for reimbursement. I am pretty sure the Governor’s schedule would tell you much more than a travel voucher.
Comment by A Jack Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:44 am
Any time any body wants spend their own money vs spending the taxpayers money should be applauded. Criticizing it, simply a way to be make an issue out of nothing.
Comment by Truthteller Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:47 am
“Anything other than reimbursement to GRF could cause pay to play politics” But he’s paying himself to play, what is he to gain from it?
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:50 am
The question is about the use of private vs. state money, not transparency. We wouldn’t be discussing the matter if it was hidden.
The standard at which this should be judged is whether the action puts a private individual’s interests above that of taxpayers or could result in abuse of state funds or actions.
I don’t see it in this instance. It saves state money. Thank you for your advice Mr. CPA, now back to your books.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 10:59 am
== Also, the fact this is the biggest issue in his first six months … ==
A couple of items over at DCFS are probably more issues …
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 11:03 am
I would have thought there would have been a much larger uproar over a Governor that spent public funds without a valid appropriation such as our previous Governor did on multiple occasions.
Did Ms. Garrett or the purist accountant speak out on that?
Comment by A Jack Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 11:07 am
== What is being hidden? == Seriously? I can think of dozens of things to hide by flying on a charter jet that I pay for with a secret passenger manifest. Didn’t Rahm lose a court case about conducting government business on private phones?
Comment by Angry Republican Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 11:19 am
I think you need to be a little less angry and perhaps find something else to be outraged about. Because this shouldn’t be it.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 11:33 am
Great Comment A Jack.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 12:16 pm
Further proof that bureaucrats can never stop themselves for a moment and think about issues like a normal person. “But the accounting principles!” Good grief
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 12:40 pm
JB can co-mingle his private funds with mine anytime. No paperwork required. To Susan Garrett: Get a life.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 1:19 pm
Even if you wanted to, good luck trying to restrict it. Suddenly, the Gov will be taking some vacation time to fly to East St. Louis for a burger. Oh, while he is there, he might run into a legislator or two, or he might get a lift to an event.
So $12 Uber fare billed to the state to get him to a meeting, $9000 private jet billed as part of his personal vacation.
Comment by thechampaignlife Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 1:23 pm
I don’t recall anything in the original story that indicated the Governor was commingling public and private funds. He paid for the net with either personal or campaign funds which are both private.
Comment by Pelonski Friday, Jun 28, 19 @ 1:23 pm