DOF’s new ‘public purpose’ regs criticized

Members of the House of Representatives yesterday lashed out at the Department of Finance again following the implementation of new regulations aimed at controlling their expenditures are now requiring them to seek approval by the Speaker.

They said the guidelines are contrary to the House rules which grant each representative the authority over his or her respective expense account and need not require certification from the presiding officer.

“I don’t think the Speaker should be controlling any expenditures that have anything to do with individual’s accounts,” Speaker Benigno R. Fitial told House members when the issue was brought up at yesterday’s session.

“If I will be made liable, I will be worse than [Finance Secretary] Lucy [Nielsen],” he added.

Mr. Fitial instructed the representatives not to route to his office their expenditures for his signature since their in-house rules provide that they have to monitor what they spend.

Ms. Nielsen, however, may not be aware of these provisions which have been included in a recently enacted law that amend existing statues concerning “public purpose” expenditures.

In an April 26 letter to the Legislature, the DOF chief informed lawmakers of the new guidelines to enforce Public Laws 11-84 and 12-2 which both specify how government funds must be expended in relation to community events or public functions.

The finance department’s role concerning certification and disbursement of legislative funds will be narrowed down to ensuring the availability of funds as well as submission of full and reasonable documentation of expenditures in accordance with accounting procedures, she said.

“Determining if an expense meets the ‘test’ for a public purpose will be borne by the Legislature through a certification of public purpose from the respective presiding officer,” Ms. Nielsen wrote.

This means that Mr. Fitial has the responsibility to certify each member’s expenditures for the lower house, while Senate President Paul A. Manglona for its counterpart in the upper house.

The finance secretary disclosed that this will not be included in the new regulations, but it will become a requirement before a member can ask for reimbursement or payment for “public purpose” expenditures.

Certification requirement

According to Rep. David M. Apatang, the department returned his request for reimbursement recently on tent rentals to his office as the documents did not have Mr. Fitial’s signature..

Under the regulations, canopy rental fee for matai funeral and wake can be paid by government funds, but not for private functions such as novena, birthdays and organizational fund raisers.

The guidelines stressed, however, the foremost test whether a specific appropriation meets this requirement is when it provides a direct benefit to a culturally or traditionally significant part of the community as opposed to an incidental or secondary benefit.

These guidelines came amid differences between finance officials and lawmakers over interpretation of “public purpose” provision in the Constitution despite passage of the two laws that were primarily intended to clarify the confusion.

“We believe that although we narrow our role in the financial management of legislative funds… we still meet our constitutional duty to control and regulate the expenditure of public funds,” Ms. Nielsen explained.

“Determining whether a particular expense meets the test for a public purpose pursuant to PL 11-84 is the responsibility of the public official and the presiding officer through the certification of public purpose process,” she added.

The department is expected to amend further the regulations to be consistent with the intent of PL 12-2 which allows payment of government funds for expenditures by Legislature that have been certified so long as they are not for political or personal gain.

In a related development, the House also passed during the session a bill that will establish a Division of Finance within the Legislature as the present system violates separation of powers between the legislative and the executive branches.

“It is inappropriate for a department of the executive branch of our government to have oversight of the spending of the legislative branch,” stated the committee report on HB 12-119 offered by Rep. Malua T. Peter.