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

[ballz]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[stellarpanther]

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]

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

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

 

[stellarpanther]

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]

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.

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....(2)

(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]

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]

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:

expenditure initiation approval has been provided to a person who has procurement authority (for example, an administrative assistant) before initiating a purchase
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
expenditure initiations are within the limits and area of authority as specified in their delegation chart
all expenditures comply with relevant statutes, regulations, departmental policy instruments and other legal obligations
C.2 Acquisition cards
In addition, for acquisition cards, the responsible manager should verify that:

The cardholder is provided with verbal or written approval before all purchases valued at an amount determined by the department based on their risk tolerance, including the Goods and Services Tax (GST) or Harmonized Sales Tax (HST). For transactions greater than the specified dollar amount, the responsible manager would provide the cardholder with written section 32 authorization before each purchase
The authority to enter into a contract is appropriate and respected, including the authority to enter into an acquisition card purchase
High-risk items such as hospitality in excess of the specified dollar amount, including GST or HST are not purchased with an acquisition card, as certain goods, services and applications are subject to restrictions on the card user
A commitment is recorded in the financial system (for budget management purposes) for all purchases over the specified dollar amount
Purchases do not exceed the monthly spending limit

 

[stellarpanther]

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]

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]

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).

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.

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]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

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]

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]

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]

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.