# Claims, TD, and Such[ split from Gen Vance announces retirement]



## Weinie (24 Jul 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Why bother? They control the budget anyway so cost cutting and a probable force reduction is already written on the wall. Willingness isn't the issue.
> 
> What they really need is to find someone who can take those cost reductions and make the hard decisions to reshape the force so that it is still credible and capable. (_*getting rid of 10,000 full-timers in Ottawa *_[including seventy-five or more GOFOs/senior civil servants and the hierarchy of Cols, LCols, Majs etc that support them] would be a good start first step - I'll start the bidding with 50 legal officers and two military judges plus staff as well as all of DNDCFLA  ;D)
> 
> ...



FJAG,

If you can find a way to stop the myriad (and mostly useless) statutory reporting requirements that have been enacted over the last 25 years, then you will go a long way to ridding Ottawa of thousands of uniforms, and endless administration. Finance, Supply, Procurement, HR, Diversity, Hateful Conduct, Education, Care of Ill and Injured, Audits, OPQ's, ATI's, etc etc . These are all mandated programs, so they are either dealt with in Ottawa, with the requisite pers burdens that they entail, or pushed down to the Op and tactical level for resolution, which takes people away from their jobs. Is there room to trim, undoubtedly, but I witnessed first hand the "lean HQ" initiative that manifested itself in the Army in the early 90's. HQ's were cut significantly, and the still extant reporting requirement was pushed to Bdes and units, with the result that they were swamped with bureaucratic admin shyte. Somebody has to do it.


----------



## FJAG (24 Jul 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> FJAG,
> 
> If you can find a way to stop the myriad (and mostly useless) statutory reporting requirements that have been enacted over the last 25 years, then you will go a long way to ridding Ottawa of thousands of uniforms, and endless administration. Finance, Supply, Procurement, HR, Diversity, Hateful Conduct, Education, Care of Ill and Injured, Audits, OPQ's, ATI's, etc etc . These are all mandated programs, so they are either dealt with in Ottawa, with the requisite pers burdens that they entail, or pushed down to the Op and tactical level for resolution, which takes people away from their jobs. Is there room to trim, undoubtedly, but I witnessed first hand the "lean HQ" initiative that manifested itself in the Army in the early 90's. HQ's were cut significantly, and the still extant reporting requirement was pushed to Bdes and units, with the result that they were swamped with bureaucratic admin shyte. Somebody has to do it.



There's no question that you are right about that. Many of these need paring down or elimination as well and any organization worth it's salt (and working for a profit) finds ways to do that. Government agencies, since they can offload costs on the public, tend just to pile one questionable bureaucratic layer on top of another. Every tiny problem screams for another piece of legislation or regulation to straighten things out.

On top of that though, DND has so many self imposed hurdles that have turned Ottawa into one massive self-licking ice cream cone; agencies and directorates that create work simply for themselves and others without any real benefit to the system. Leslie's Report on Transformation found 7,000 military and public service jobs that "serve little purpose" and he was prevented from looking in detail at NDHQ. Most of those were middle management within Ottawa. Many headquarter agencies can be streamlined by reducing reporting layers and automating processes.

The problem is that the military and civil service are traditionally conservative and highly resistant to change. If one was kind, one would say that they are so busy doing their day-to-day job that they don't have time to reform themselves, especially on the scale that is needed. But then I've never been particularly kind when it comes to bureaucrats: in my humble opinion they are too protective of their corporate rice-bowls. Change has to come mandated from outside. Honestly, if NDHQ/CFHQ was part of a civilian corporate structure the board would have fired the CEO/CFO/COO and half of their staff long ago. Can you imagine a business for warfighting that gives up it's necessary operational capabilities while increasing it's headquarters by 4,803 people (46%) and in Ottawa in particular by 3,368 people (61%) and its executives by 19% (including a 25% increase in civilian executives) and still argue with a straight face that the government is giving them enough money like DND/CF did during 2004 to 2011.

And have you ever read our departmental performance reports? (Don't answer. I know you have) On a PER they would be summarized as "This department sets low standards for itself and continuously fails to meet them." But when you go through the 158 pages of tables and pie charts and verbiage (that's the 2018 one I'm haven't seen one for 2019) you are overwhelmed by the sheer banality of it all. There must be whole directorates that are responsible for churning out this and numerous similar pieces of tripe. (Fire them right after the fifty plus lawyers and maybe a few dozen communication branch wallahs.)

But I digress.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

 :cheers:


----------



## stellarpanther (24 Jul 2020)

When I worked at CJOC some years ago, we used to have a Comd Coffee once a week and I recall one time shortly after word came down about how everyone needed to save money and TD's would need the approval of the COS, a BGen and international TD needed the CJOC Comd or DComd's approval.  It lasted about a month until they started complaining they didn't have the time to review these things and everything went back to normal.  It's amazing how much money is wasted on TD's when a video conferences would often accomplish the same thing.  I used to see senior officers come up and say they can't believe how much money the CAF just wasted for sending 3 people to Europe for a week long useless conference.  Other times I've heard people say one person instead of a team could have been sent.  We could save a lot just on limiting TD.  As far as numbers in Ottawa, they are not going to cut the amount of people they have posted to the NCR.  That was already recommended by LGen (Ret) Leslie and look what happened.  I believe the numbers went up instead of down.


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> When I worked at CJOC some years ago, we used to have a Comd Coffee once a week and I recall one time shortly after word came down about how everyone needed to save money and TD's would need the approval of the COS, a BGen and international TD needed the CJOC Comd or DComd's approval.  It lasted about a month until they started complaining they didn't have the time to review these things and everything went back to normal.  It's amazing how much money is wasted on TD's when a video conferences would often accomplish the same thing.  I used to see senior officers come up and say they can't believe how much money the CAF just wasted for sending 3 people to Europe for a week long useless conference.  Other times I've heard people say one person instead of a team could have been sent.  We could save a lot just on limiting TD.  As far as numbers in Ottawa, they are not going to cut the amount of people they have posted to the NCR.  That was already recommended by LGen (Ret) Leslie and look what happened.  I believe the numbers went up instead of down.



My experience with meetings is that the “real” business happens during coffee breaks chatting with people.  This is how I normally get files moving forward.  There is a real intangible from being on-site, that you don’t get sitting in front of a screen.  It also allows you to read your audience a lot better.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Jul 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> My experience with meetings is that the “real” business happens during coffee breaks chatting with people.  This is how I normally get files moving forward.  There is a real intangible from being on-site, that you don’t get sitting in front of a screen.  It also allows you to read your audience a lot better.


You can get away with some remote meetings... but they work best when the attendees already know each other through face to face.

And the CAF role is not only to succeed today; there is also a need to develop and get experience for more junior personnel.  It's a balance.

Is there some useless TD?  Yes.  Is there useful and important TD that does not happen because of restrictions?  Also yes.


----------



## Lumber (24 Jul 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You can get away with some remote meetings... but they work best when the attendees already know each other through face to face.
> 
> And the CAF role is not only to succeed today; there is also a need to develop and get experience for more junior personnel.  It's a balance.
> 
> Is there some useless TD?  Yes.  Is there useful and important TD that does not happen because of restrictions?  Also yes.



It's not just whether the TD is justified, but how it's not being properly controlled (comptrolled?). My experience working for the naval reserve was FAR different from my experience working for the RegF.

While working for the reserves, you got nothing more than what was reasonable unless you could substantiate it. Heck, the commander of NAVRES stayed in one of the crappiest hotels in our town and was driven around in our ugly as 8 pax van because it was available. However, in the RegF:

You have people being approved to stay in hotels when there are accommodations available on base.
You have people being approved to stay in a hotel the night before their flight out from a tasking even though their bunks on base/ship are still available .
You have people being approved for rental cars when they are attending an event on base and are staying at accommodations on base.
You have people being approved for flights much greater than the cheaper option because who knows why.
Etc.

When I ask friends in the RCAF and CANSOF how they get away with it, their response is almost universally something like "our clerks just do whatever we ask them to".


----------



## stellarpanther (24 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> When I ask friends in the RCAF and CANSOF how they get away with it, their response is almost universally something like "our clerks just do whatever we ask them to".



Believe me not all of us do that.  I've pissed off several Sr Officers and Sr. NCO's in the past by telling them they weren't entitled to something.  Mind you they don't have to stay at the crappiest hotel in town either though.  They are allowed to stay at whatever hotel they want to up to the max rate for that city.  If the hotel is more they can still stay there but will only get the max city rate.  The CFTDTI's and NJC policies supersedes the CO's wishes.  Unfortunately I once had a CO that was telling mbr's to say at a motel 6 in one city because it was cheaper.  The mbr's grieved it and that CO's policy very quickly came to an end and the mbr's received their money that was owed.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> It's not just whether the TD is justified, but how it's not being properly controlled (comptrolled?). My experience working for the naval reserve was FAR different from my experience working for the RegF.
> 
> While working for the reserves, you got nothing more than what was reasonable unless you could substantiate it. Heck, the commander of NAVRES stayed in one of the crappiest hotels in our town and was driven around in our ugly as 8 pax van because it was available. However, in the RegF:
> 
> ...



I witnessed this as well and the downright bullying of the clerical folks to make it happen.  There is sense of entitlement that is permeating the CAF and when you are the Cpl/LS Log type trying to do the right thing with a higher rank bearing down on you and your own CoC won’t support you it gets difficult if not impossible.  Not mention that our audits are toothless wastes of time and resources.  There really is no repercussion for the misuse and abuse of our logistical systems, and it has made our jobs down right impossible to accomplish. 

Although my personality makes it easier for me to fight back and up hold regulations.  Sometime over a beer I will tell the story about the Clearance Diver CPO2 who demanded that I procure the divers at a unit with shower kits, exercise attire and  running shoes because their trade is special and demands a high level of fitness.  

Or when I had to stand in front of CO and explain why it’s not just wrong but a bad idea to let one of his LT(N)s bring a C8 with bolt and Mag home to practice their drills in preparation for SOF selection.  Yup the LT(N) fought me all the way to the CO about that one.


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Jul 2020)

I ask my folks to absolutely use quarters if they are available/suitable but there are circumstances when it is not practical.  We tend to work on DVPNI quite a bit on the road and not having an internet connection is a show stopper.  Not so much an issue now that most bases have adopted Wifi but we had a fair amount of people stay in hotels for this specifically.

The other common occurrence is to live in on-base accommodation but eat meals on the economy.  Bases don’t allow to have a “pay as go you” card (ie: only be charged the meals you actually eat) and our schedule often does not allow for us to eat at the mess hall (flying or working far from base) so we eat on the economy.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> While working for the reserves, you got nothing more than what was reasonable unless you could substantiate it. Heck, the commander of NAVRES stayed in one of the crappiest hotels in our town and was driven around in our ugly as 8 pax van because it was available. However, in the RegF:
> 
> You have people being approved to stay in hotels when there are accommodations available on base.
> You have people being approved to stay in a hotel the night before their flight out from a tasking even though their bunks on base/ship are still available .
> ...



While nice soundbites, all of those statements require a lot of context before you can bust out the pitchforks and burn the witches of fiscal mismanagement.

For Point 3, I sincerely hope you have to go on course on a massive base (Gagetown, Borden) in the middle of winter where your accomodations are on the other side of the base from the Canex and/or mess hall. Enjoy your long cold walks trapped for weeks on a base using all your TD money on taxis just so you don't go insane. Sounds like one of those screw the troops before they screw you situations.

There's nothing in the CFTDIs that I found that says a member is not allowed to have a rental vehicle while on TD. If it's business planned for and the approving authority says the justification is good to go then why are we not allowing our troops to have a little bit of comfort when sent away from home?

 :highjack:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Jul 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> While nice soundbites, all of those statements require a lot of context before you can bust out the pitchforks and burn the witches of fiscal mismanagement.
> 
> For Point 3, I sincerely hope you have to go on course on a massive base (Gagetown, Borden) in the middle of winter where your accomodations are on the other side of the base from the Canex and/or mess hall. Enjoy your long cold walks trapped for weeks on a base using all your TD money on taxis just so you don't go insane. Sounds like one of those screw the troops before they screw you situations.
> 
> ...



All Naval Officers should have to spend 10 weeks of their life living in Tent City in Gagetown to get an appreciation of how shitty the troops have it sometimes.

There would be a heck of a lot less FTT.


----------



## NAVCEN (25 Jul 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> All Naval Officers should have to spend 10 weeks of their life living in Tent City in Gagetown to get an appreciation of how shitty the troops have it sometimes.
> 
> There would be a heck of a lot less FTT.



Nope, two nights in Op Impacts Camp Canada re-enforced to me that the Navy has bar none the best accommodations in the Forces and I should never ever bitch about them! (2nd to the RCAF 7 Star accommodations of course!  ;D)


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

The way I was taught and considered when approving claims was whether it was allowed in the regulations.  If the CFTDTI/NJC doesn't specifically prevent it then it's up to whoever is approving the TD to allow it.  There are some mbr's who just do something on their own and then expect the FSA's to go along with it.  It should be approved in advance a simple email to attach is all that is required or include it our your initial request and get it signed off then. 
I've seen numerous people get approved for a rental car while on TD in Borden or Halifax, I've never had that luck but it's not because it wasn't allowed, just that my unit wouldn't agree to it.  As for flights, in addition to looking at the cost of the flight, you should look at other factors as well.  Do you really want to make the mbr sit around the airport waiting 6 hours for a connection or get home at 3:00am just so your unit can save $150?  I've never done that to someone but unfortunately some people do operate that way and penny pinch.  I've been spoken to on a few occasions by my CoC for not being enough of a bean counter but I always try to put the mbr first while staying within the regulations.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> It's not just whether the TD is justified, but how it's not being properly controlled (comptrolled?).
> 
> You have people being approved for rental cars when they are attending an event on base and are staying at accommodations on base.



Sometimes staying on base using R & Q can also entail a rental;  staying at the Dakota Inn and having a conference at Glass Palace in January at YWG is a good example (did that last Jan).


----------



## brihard (25 Jul 2020)

Some wild thread drift here. Time for a split perhaps into a new or existing claims/CFTDTIs thread?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2020)

Split off and renamed.  General Vance's retirement thread is  here


----------



## PPCLI Guy (25 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> The way I was taught and considered when approving claims was whether it was allowed in the regulations.



When you saying you are approving a claim, do you mean exercising Sect 34 authorities?  Or Sect 33?


----------



## ballz (25 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> It's not just whether the TD is justified, but how it's not being properly controlled (comptrolled?). My experience working for the naval reserve was FAR different from my experience working for the RegF.
> 
> While working for the reserves, you got nothing more than what was reasonable unless you could substantiate it. Heck, the commander of NAVRES stayed in one of the crappiest hotels in our town and was driven around in our ugly as 8 pax van because it was available. However, in the RegF:
> 
> ...



It's first important to point out that the decision-making surrounding whether someone gets a hotel vice shacks, or gets a rental car, etc. rests with the approving authority, which in almost all cases of overnight travel is a CO or higher.

Most of what you have listed I have not noticed _much_ poor decision-making around in the Army. I would say there's been a few times where we've worked with the RCN and RCAF, such as Dom Ops, and the disparity was quite a point of contention. In the Army we're probably more often guilty of screwing people over to save $5 and all the while wasting a full day of work for that person. This is usually out of thinking we aren't _allowed_ to use discretion, a great example being the many many many many times we would be smarter to request a member use their POMV but we don't even recognize that option exists.

It's not up to RMS clerks, or now FSAs, to determine whether or not you get a rental vehicle. There's a reason an Individual Travel Authorization outlines how you will travel, with a cost estimate, and that the member acknowledges it, before the approving authority approves it and the amount is Sect 32'd. If it shows you'll be getting a rental car, or shows you'll be staying in commercial accommodations, you're good to go. If it doesn't, you aren't. It's not the finance staff's decision.

Sadly, we are obviously organizationally incompetent for this conversation to be even occurring.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> It's not just whether the TD is justified, but how it's not being properly controlled (comptrolled?).



The Comptroller world, starting with ADM(Fin), can only make the rules. Management operates within them. If management proves unable to handle the discretion they are given, then yes, it becomes an assurance* issue. It's one of those things where if you** need more explicit direction it can be provided, but you might not like it and would be a lot better to reign it in yourself.

*Assurance - The proper term for what we're talking about is assurance, which encompasses a whole range of things including audit, internal control, training, policy, etc. This is not a term I've ever heard used in the CAF but I've become more and more a stickler on nomenclature as it seems directly tied to results.

**You - And by "you" I mean whoever the approving authority is... like I said, in most cases we are talking about a CO or higher, someone who ought to be able to entrusted to keep stewardship in mind. In fairness, in our current state they are often receiving poor advice, but then they also ignore some pretty good advice thinking they know better. Hard for me to gauge anything outside my own organization in this regard, I just don't have the right vantage point, so I won't comment on how well or not well we are doing on this front.


----------



## ballz (25 Jul 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I witnessed this as well and the downright bullying of the clerical folks to make it happen.  There is sense of entitlement that is permeating the CAF and when you are the Cpl/LS Log type trying to do the right thing with a higher rank bearing down on you and your own CoC won’t support you it gets difficult if not impossible.



There's a reason of course, in other organizations, the accountants work for the financial controller and not operations manager. But the CAF seems to think it's found a better way...



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Not mention that our audits are toothless wastes of time and resources.  There really is no repercussion for the misuse and abuse of our logistical systems, and it has made our jobs down right impossible to accomplish.



The only "audits" done in the department are by ADM(Review Services), or the AG Canada if they should want. In any case, our internal assurance functions which are often called "audits" are not actually audits. Some of our internal assurance functions, such as post-payment verifications, were confirmed by ADM(RS) to be "unreliable." They re-performed PPV results and had different results 60% of the time. In other words, we weren't even competent enough to inspect ourselves for issues. Governance of financial management was noted as needing "significant improvement" by ADM(RS) who, in my opinion, have been doing their damn best to help  but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

I recently read a JCSP thesis on military finance officers which was essentially warning back in 2014 that if we don't sort it out, military comptrollership is going to be replaced by civilians, and once again, we might not like it... but we'll have done it to ourselves.

Right now the Deputy CFO / CAF Comptroller, MGen Goodyear, doesn't have any Colonels with the TB-required accounting designation to replace him, and the Deputy Canadian Army Comptroller is going to be "temporarily" filled by an FI-04 next year... let's see how quick a temporary fix becomes a permanent one....


----------



## PPCLI Guy (25 Jul 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> > It's first important to point out that the decision-making surrounding whether someone gets a hotel vice shacks, or gets a rental car, etc. rests with the approving authority, which in almost all cases of overnight travel is a CO or higher.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ballz (25 Jul 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Despite what they may think.  I have been around this buoy a few times.....but seldom a second time with the same clerk.



Now if management could just accept responsibility for the management-side of the expenditure management process, instead of making the FSA's do it (i.e. drafting and staffing the ITA, which it is most definitely not their job), it might save everyone a few trips around that buoy, one might even say we'd be sailing the ship in the right direction at that point 

The FSAs shouldn't even see an ITA until a member's trip is complete, the guy has returned, and has just submitted his _completed_ claim with the ITA attached to it.  :worms: :worms: :worms:


----------



## stellarpanther (25 Jul 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> Now if management could just accept responsibility for the management-side of the expenditure management process, instead of making the FSA's do it (i.e. drafting and staffing the ITA, which it is most definitely not their job), it might save everyone a few trips around that buoy, one might even say we'd be sailing the ship in the right direction at that point
> 
> The FSAs shouldn't even see an ITA until a member's trip is complete, the guy has returned, and has just submitted his _completed_ claim with the ITA attached to it.  :worms: :worms: :worms:



I couldn't agree more.  The only thing I will say though is that some units have the HRA/FSA's do all the flight reservations and sometimes hotel or accommodations bookings.  They don't trust giving the mbr the TAN to book their own flights.  We use the ITA and attach it to the claim as the authority and then one of the FSA's with section 32 signs it.


----------



## Ostrozac (25 Jul 2020)

Different units have different approaches to Temporary Duty. Back I was at 1st Division HQ (albeit when it was briefly self-identifying as CFJHQ) we had a comprehensive travel SOP that included various pre-calculated and authorized cost comparisons for the purpose of using POMVs, rentals or base transport to common destinations. There was also a nice shoutout about VIA One. It even included a chapter on the three airheads most often used by the HQ (Toronto Pearson, Montreal Dorval, Ottawa) and the pros and cons and logistics of using each. There was even a small rant about Kingston Airport and how their little planes weren’t compatible with the typical mountain of kit that military people like to travel with. In all, it was a great SOP, was in accordance with policy and saved everyone a lot of time.

In contrast, my current headquarters tends to treat a request for travel similar to a request for tequila and weed. Full Colonels and General Officers seem to be absolutely fascinated by the minutia of mileage and lunch claims, based on the amount of time and effort they spend on the subject. War requires a degree of mobility — this isn’t the first soldier in history that needs to take the train, it doesn’t have to be this hard.


----------



## Lumber (25 Jul 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> While nice soundbites, all of those statements require a lot of context before you can bust out the pitchforks and burn the witches of fiscal mismanagement.
> 
> For Point 3, I sincerely hope you have to go on course on a massive base (Gagetown, Borden) in the middle of winter where your accomodations are on the other side of the base from the Canex and/or mess hall. Enjoy your long cold walks trapped for weeks on a base using all your TD money on taxis just so you don't go insane. Sounds like one of those screw the troops before they screw you situations.
> 
> ...



I agree more context is needed: I was thinking of specific examples but trying to make them more general, which didn't work. 

For point 3, I was thinking of Halifax, where the mess hall is located in the same building as accommodations, and the whole base is already downtown. So if you're attending a planning conference at the warfare Centre which is literally a 2 minute walk from accommodations, and downtown is a 10 min walk, why do you need a rental vehicle?


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> For point 3, I was thinking of Halifax, where the mess hall is located in the same building as accommodations, and the whole base is already downtown. So if you're attending a planning conference at the warfare Centre which is literally a 2 minute walk from accommodations, and downtown is a 10 min walk, why do you need a rental vehicle?



I did my COMSEC course in Halifax. Never once did I think I could try to justify a rental vehicle. Juno Tower was a 10 min walk from the dockyard COMSEC building, even in the rain. Downtown was right there. Try telling someone they can't have a car in almost any other base in Canada and unless they're a Pte/AB they're going to tell you to pound sand.

There's a fine balance between being fiscally prudent with tax dollars, and screwing our troops over when we send them away for business. That's why those decisions should be left with the supervisor who's been delegated to approve the travel and not in an office of a FSA. If the delegated officer wants to blow his whole year of TD on 1 member's travel so they can rent a corvette and stay at the Chateau Laurier, thats between him and the DCO/CO to discuss in a likely 1-way conversation.


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Jul 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If the delegated officer wants to blow his whole year of TD on 1 member's travel so they can rent a corvette and stay at the Chateau Laurier, thats between him and the DCO/CO to discuss in a likely 1-way conversation.



While it's a common believe amongst a lot of people including some Sr. Officers, they can not spend their budget and approve whatever they want.  Nobody would be getting the cost of a corvette approved or the full cost to stay at the Chateau Laurier approved and even if it did it would not get paid.  Mbr's are only entitled to the max amount allowed.  You are entitled to an intermediate vehicle and that's it.  If a group goes and uses the same vehicle, I can see an exception being made.

The Max rate for a hotel in Ottawa is: $200 per night
Max rate for car rental in Ottawa (airport rate) is currently: $41.92 per day

The Ref for car rental is:  https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/pay-pension-benefits/benefits/canadian-forces-temporary-duty-travel-instructions.html

CFTDTI:  Section 5.20(2)(f)

Edited to say: would not


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Jul 2020)

You missed the point there... they were hyperbolic examples...


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Jul 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You missed the point there... they were hyperbolic examples...



Sorry... You'd be surprised how many people think that though and will stand there arguing about it.  I read it quickly and automatically thought you were serious.  I should have realized because normally you come across as quite knowledgeable.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> While it's a common believe amongst a lot of people including some Sr. Officers, they can not spend their budget and approve whatever they want.  Nobody would be getting the cost of a corvette approved or the full cost to stay at the Chateau Laurier approved and even if it did it would not get paid.  Mbr's are only entitled to the max amount allowed.  You are entitled to an intermediate vehicle and that's it.  If a group goes and uses the same vehicle, I can see an exception being made.
> 
> The Max rate for a hotel in Ottawa is: $200 per night
> Max rate for car rental in Ottawa (airport rate) is currently: $41.92 per day
> ...



Again, what authority in the FAA are you invoking as a clerk that is processing a claim?


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Jul 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Again, what authority in the FAA are you invoking as a clerk that is processing a claim?



Those max rates are set by Treasury board and that's what we are told to follow.  We (FSA's now) are the ones who approve section 32 after ITA is complete and we are the ones who approve it section 34 when the mbr comes back.  We follow what the CFTDTI says and for civilians we follow the NJC.  There are sometimes cases, not very often in which someone will go to the CO complaining and he will agree with the mbr after we've told them no.  In that case, we get the CO to approve the section 34 so it doesn't come back on us.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jul 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> There's a reason of course, in other organizations, the accountants work for the financial controller and not operations manager. But the CAF seems to think it's found a better way...(1)
> 
> The only "audits" done in the department are by ADM(Review Services), or the AG Canada if they should want. In any case, our internal assurance functions which are often called "audits" are not actually audits. Some of our internal assurance functions, such as post-payment verifications, were confirmed by ADM(RS) to be "unreliable." They re-performed PPV results and had different results 60% of the time. In other words, we weren't even competent enough to inspect ourselves for issues. Governance of financial management was noted as needing "significant improvement" by ADM(RS) who, in my opinion, have been doing their damn best to help  but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
> 
> ...



(1) I am only observing from the outside of the ADM/FIN world as my SME-ness is Supply.  But I feel if I were a a smart man, I would hitch my wagon to your horse on this one. 

(2) We have material "audits" that come to ensure compliance to material managment rules and policy.  The LRI/LCI (Logistics Redainess Inspection / Logistics Compliance Inspection).  I have found, that while the possiblity exists for these to be transformative and useful evolutions, in reality they are toothless and simply end in all words and no action.  

If we applied the same standards of practice to material managment as we do to financial management I think you would see a very different CFSS.


----------



## Lumber (26 Jul 2020)

Can someone tell me what you are actually supposed to be doing/checking before  you sign section 32?

- A question from someone who exercised section 32 authority for 3 years...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Jul 2020)

The full reference:

https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32584&section=html

A Checklist:



> Appendix C: example of a checklist for commitment authority (section 32 of the FAA)
> C.1 Overall purchases (including acquisition cards)
> Before performing commitment authority under section 32 of the Financial Administration Act (FAA), individuals should verify that:
> 
> ...


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Jul 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The full reference:
> 
> https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32584&section=html
> 
> A Checklist:



Are you referring to Claims or any financial matter because i was only talking about claims?


----------



## Lumber (26 Jul 2020)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The full reference:
> 
> https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32584&section=html
> 
> A Checklist:



My issues below:

1. expenditure initiation approval has been provided to a person who has procurement authority (for example, an administrative assistant) before initiating a purchase

Ok my "issue" with this is that those with Section 32 ALSO (usually) have expenditure initiation authority. So, if the person who wants the purchase doesn't actually have expenditure initiation authority, couldn't I just do it for them?So lets say a department head comes in with a request to spend $1500 on some special pieces of non-safety related dive gear (short length wet suits perhaps) for the dive team prior deployment. The department head doesnt have expenditure initiation authority, but "I" do! So, even though he can't initiate the purchase, I say to myself "this purchase makes sense, and besides he's a HOD, he knows what his department needs", so then "I" initiate the purchase on his behalf.

I guess my issue here is, why do we need "expenditure initiation authority", or rather, why does someone need formal training in order to have it? Can't the CO just draft a memo stating "all department heads may initiate expenditures supporting routine business up to $xxxx without prior consent from me, so long as those purchase abide by CAF procurement policies", and then it's up to those of us with section 32 to explain to those HODs that, despite that memo, they can't purchase funny posters for their spaces because it would "good for moral" (or can't purchase safety glasses from Canadian Tire because there are special rules regarding procuring safety equipment).

2. expenditure initiation does not exceed the free balance established in the relevant cost centre budget commitments over a certain amount (to be determined), including those made using an acquisition card, are recorded for budget projection purposes

My problem with this one is that lots of people have section 32 and expenditure initiation authority, but few people have access to DRMIS, let alone how to navigate that ungodly beast. If I know my unit has a roughly $1 million dollar operating budget (reserve pay , TD, and O&M), do I relly need to look up the exact amount we have available before approving a $200 PP&S order? What about prior to approving travel (section 32 approval, not travel approval) for an event that I know was part of the budget plan? Also, if I am supposed to check DRMIS before everytime I sign section 32, what type of "proof" do they need? A print screen of the unit's unecumbered balance with a date and a signature showing I checked it on the same day I signed section 32? What about instead of DRMIS I simply used an excel spreadshet produced by the unit's FinO that shows the remaining balance for the unit?

What if I'm trying to section 32 travel spending, but the TD is being funded by the HQ's fin code for a schedule training event. I don't even have access to their numbers in DRIMS, or any ad hoc spread sheets made by their fin cell, plus it's noon on a Friday and the member was a late addition to the exercise and the member needs to fly out TONIGHT. What do I do?

3. expenditure initiations are within the limits and area of authority as specified in their delegation chart

Similar to #1. If the person initiating the expenditure doesn't even have expenditure initiation authority, or has very limited authority, I could just do it for them if it makes sense and/or if I know this is something command wants (maybe it was discussed at a meeting that I was present at).

4. all expenditures comply with relevant statutes, regulations, departmental policy instruments and other legal obligations

Yea ok this one I understand and get.


----------



## ballz (26 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Can someone tell me what you are actually supposed to be doing/checking before  you sign section 32?
> 
> - A question from someone who exercised section 32 authority for 3 years...



Summarizing PPCLI Guy's TB reference into English....

Ensure EIA is in place.

Ensure the EIA is actually valid (i.e. for a claim, if it's travel outside the local area, that the approval authority is a CO and not just an RC Mgr who can't approve non-local travel).... and this would also be ensuring on a travel claim that what is being approved is within the CFTDTIs.

Ensure the EIA complies with... "all other policies"

Ensure you have enough money for the purchase.

Ensure the commitment is recorded (which can be as simple as writing it down on a sheet of paper.... but DND now has internal policy that it has to be recorded using DRMIS).



			
				stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Those max rates are set by Treasury board and that's what we are told to follow.  We (FSA's now) are the ones who approve section 32 after ITA is complete and we are the ones who approve it section 34 when the mbr comes back.  We follow what the CFTDTI says and for civilians we follow the NJC.  There are sometimes cases, not very often in which someone will go to the CO complaining and he will agree with the mbr after we've told them no.  In that case, we get the CO to approve the section 34 so it doesn't come back on us.



While it should technically be picked up at Sect 32, FSAs shouldn't be doing Sect 32, although it most unfortunately is FSAs in most places right now, but I digress.

Sect 34 is the right answer to PPCLI Guy's question. During the account verification process, one of the steps is ensuring the transaction (in this case a travel claim, but applies to all other claims as well as invoices... any accounts payable) is accurately calculated. Sect 34 can't be done if it's not good to go. Now, people make mistakes and miss stuff, and that's okay as long as it's not habitual due to incompetence or negligence. But someone can't decide "I'm a CO, if my finance staff won't sign it, I will accept the risk and Sect 34 whatever I want..." That's not "accepting risk," that's simply willfully breaking the law and risking that you won't get caught. Any CO doing so should be reported, and should be dealt with pretty harshly but depending on how weak their boss is on accountability........... well, draw your own conclusions.

So while it is the approving authority's decision on whether or not you get a rental car, hotel, etc., there are limits on that as SP has pointed out, which is the CFTDTIs. And the Delegation of Authorities documents state pretty clearly for travel that travel authority is limited to CBI 209 and CFTDTI. 



			
				stellarpanther said:
			
		

> There are sometimes cases, not very often in which someone will go to the CO complaining and he will agree with the mbr after we've told them no.  In that case, we get the CO to approve the section 34 so it doesn't come back on us.



This is not the right course of action and I'm sorry the CAF has set up a system where this probably happens a lot and it's the clerks getting ****ed around by it and go home with a knife in their back. IAW DAOD 1000-5, approved by the Deputy Minister and the CDS, ADM(Fin) is the functional authority on finance, not the Chain of Command. This functional authority flows through the Comptrollers albeit poorly established, poorly communicated, poorly thought-out (it was likely a compromise... contemporary wisdom would dictate that the CFO owns the financial controllers who own the accounting operations. In other words, we'd be independent much like the legal branch), and most Comptroller's don't appear to want any ownership of the FSA trade (another worthy tangent).


----------



## ballz (26 Jul 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Ok my "issue" with this is that those with Section 32 ALSO (usually) have expenditure initiation authority. So, if the person who wants the purchase doesn't actually have expenditure initiation authority, couldn't I just do it for them?So lets say a department head comes in with a request to spend $1500 on some special pieces of non-safety related dive gear (short length wet suits perhaps) for the dive team prior deployment. The department head doesnt have expenditure initiation authority, but "I" do! So, even though he can't initiate the purchase, I say to myself "this purchase makes sense, and besides he's a HOD, he knows what his department needs", so then "I" initiate the purchase on his behalf.
> 
> I guess my issue here is, why do we need "expenditure initiation authority", or rather, why does someone need formal training in order to have it?



You need EIA because EIA is what actually determined *what* you can authorize. We talk about EIA as if it's one thing, but there's actually 13 different varieties of EIA. For example, if a HOD wants to spent $1500 on alcohol for the boys, he/you can't approve it because you don't have the required EIA authority to do so. EIA is about "what" you are buying, Sect 32 is validating that there is enough money and you are actually willing to spend the money.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Can't the CO just draft a memo stating "all department heads may initiate expenditures supporting routine business up to $xxxx without prior consent from me, so long as those purchase abide by CAF procurement policies", and then it's up to those of us with section 32 to explain to those HODs that, despite that memo, they can't purchase funny posters for their spaces because it would "good for moral" (or can't purchase safety glasses from Canadian Tire because there are special rules regarding procuring safety equipment)



So what you're saying here is, at some point, someone needs to be responsible for the things EIA entails... and how do we delineate who can buy what without EIA?



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> My problem with this one is that lots of people have section 32 and expenditure initiation authority, but few people have access to DRMIS, let alone how to navigate that ungodly beast. If I know my unit has a roughly $1 million dollar operating budget (reserve pay , TD, and O&M), do I relly need to look up the exact amount we have available before approving a $200 PP&S order? What about prior to approving travel (section 32 approval, not travel approval) for an event that I know was part of the budget plan? Also, if I am supposed to check DRMIS before everytime I sign section 32, what type of "proof" do they need? A print screen of the unit's unecumbered balance with a date and a signature showing I checked it on the same day I signed section 32? What about instead of DRMIS I simply used an excel spreadshet produced by the unit's FinO that shows the remaining balance for the unit?



I think you are overthinking this one. You don't need "proof" of anything. If you've been given the DOA, you've been entrusted to use it, and if you are certifying it, you are essentially stating you've done so. That's it, that's all. If it's April and you are confident you can afford the $200 purchases and don't bother to look, fill yer boots man. Your _word_ is considered proof that it was done.

Regarding DRMIS, it's not required that you have access. Looking at excel sheet produced from DRMIS is fine, in fact I keep one posted on our ACIMS site and anyone can check what their numbers are. That said, it's also crap simple to get DRMIS display and favourite the one report you'd need to run.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> What if I'm trying to section 32 travel spending, but the TD is being funded by the HQ's fin code for a schedule training event. I don't even have access to their numbers in DRIMS, or any ad hoc spread sheets made by their fin cell, plus it's noon on a Friday and the member was a late addition to the exercise and the member needs to fly out TONIGHT. What do I do?



Something we commonly do wrong all across the CAF, but you can't S.32 someone else's stuff.... so we've kinda run aground with this example. What's supposed to happen is *they* provide EIA/S.32 because *they* are paying for it, and on your side it only requires the immediate superior's agreement to allow their subordinate to go on it. And thus, if we did things correctly, your example predicament can't actually happen.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Similar to #1. If the person initiating the expenditure doesn't even have expenditure initiation authority, or has very limited authority, I could just do it for them if it makes sense and/or if I know this is something command wants (maybe it was discussed at a meeting that I was present at).



Yes, you can do it for them, provided *you* have the right EIA columns to do what they want. 

This is why I get irritated with how we do things and how Commanders are afraid to give out DOAs. If I'm responsible for something, give me the resources I require and let me manage them to get the job done, that's called mission command. That includes financial authorities and financial resources.

Instead, we have Commanders (Platoon, Company, etc.) charged with all kinds of tasks but in reality everything is up to the QM because most units darilek themselves of all financial duties and make the QM do it all.

Which brings me back to this part:



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Can't the CO just draft a memo stating "all department heads may initiate expenditures supporting routine business up to $xxxx without prior consent from me, so long as those purchase abide by CAF procurement policies"



No, because those are financial authorities, and the only way to delegate financial authorities is through the Delegation of Authority mechanism. But he can just give them a DOA with the appropriate EIA (in this case Column 13) and Sect 32 authority up to $xxxx, which is exactly what you are saying his letter would say. Now, tell someone that and watch them crap their pants about how much "risk" there is to give out a DOA to someone, even though they'd probably be fine with this made-up "letter" mechanism that would have the same effect.


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Jul 2020)

Ballz... Thank you for explaining that so clearly.  I already understood the majority of what you were saying but I wish I could go back in time and printout everything you just said in your last two posts because it would of have prevented a lot of arguments at the counter.


----------



## shawn5o (28 Jul 2020)

I recall being on TD in Ottawa  back in the 90s and yep, we got cheap motel accommodations in Vanier. When I arrived at the Ottawa airport, my buddy and I grabbed a taxi and the driver told us how to increase our TD claim.

Wow. And I do recall this - When on UN duties, I noted officers claimed daily newspapers on their TD allowances. Another wow!


----------



## Furniture (28 Jul 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Wow. And I do recall this - When on UN duties, I noted officers claimed daily newspapers on their TD allowances. Another wow!



Were those officers required to be aware of the changing situation in the local area, and the broader region? If so, it would be a work expense therefore it would make sense to claim it.


----------



## shawn5o (29 Jul 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Were those officers required to be aware of the changing situation in the local area, and the broader region? If so, it would be a work expense therefore it would make sense to claim it.



Hi Furniture

Yes, i believe it to be so. Thanks for the 411


----------

