- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
- In an eight-page letter to lawmakers, GAO general counsel Thomas H. Armstrong said the EPA failed to notify lawmakers that it was exceeding the $5,000 limit for agency heads to furnish, redecorate or otherwise make improvements to their offices
- Armstrong also found that the EPA violated the federal Antideficiency Act, “because EPA obligated appropriated funds in a manner specifically prohibited by law.”
- The EPA had argued that the almost $25,000 customized phone booth was not part of a redecoration of Pruitt’s office and should not be subject to the $5,000 cap.
- The EPA maintains other areas in its building where officials can place secure calls
- The EPA argued the booth allows Pruitt to “make and receive calls to discuss sensitive information … (up to the top secret level) for the purpose of conducting agency business.”
- None of Pruitt's predecessors have had such a booth
- EPA argued that the booth was “analogous to other functional items an employee might require to perform his job duties such as a high speed computer, high speed copier/scanner, or television.”
- “We draw no conclusions regarding whether the installation of the privacy booth was the only, or the best, way for EPA to provide a secure telephone line for the Administrator,” Armstrong wrote. “EPA’s failure to make the necessary notification is the only subject of this opinion."
Source
Discuss.
