Office      of Inspector General
 

Audit of Expenditures for Furnishing 

or Redecorating Commissioners’ 

Offices 

A15-05

 September 2015 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Federal Maritime Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

Report The FMC Lacks an Effective Process to 

Account for Commissioners’ Furniture and Highlights Related Expenditures (Audit A15-05, September 2015) 

Why We Did This Audit 

The Office of Inspector General 

received a request on May 9, 20121 , 

from the U.S. House of 

Representatives Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, 

for a complete account for all 

purchases made for the thenChairman. 

Background 

To ensure Presidential-appointees do 

not expend taxpayers’ dollars for 

lavish office suites, laws have been in 

place to limit amounts to be spent on 

office redecorating and improvements 

to a maximum of $5,000. 

Specifically, the law states the 

following: 

During the period in which the head of 

any department or agency, or any 

other officer or civilian employee of the 

Federal Government appointed by the 

President of the United States, holds 

office, no funds may be obligated or 

expended in excess of $5,000 to 

furnish or redecorate the office of such 

department head, agency head, 

officer, or employee, or to purchase 

furniture or make improvements for 

any such office, unless advance notice 

of such furnishing or redecoration is 

transmitted to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives and the Senate. 

For the purposes of this section, the 

term ‘‘office’’ shall include the entire 

suite of offices assigned to the 

individual, as well as any other space 

used primarily by the individual or the 

use of which is directly controlled by 

the individual. 

What We Found 

The OIG’s audit determined that the $5,000 statutory limit to furnish or 

redecorate, or to purchase furniture or make improvements to a Presidentialappointee’s offices was exceeded for the former Chairman; this former Chairman 

served as FMC Chairman from September 2009 to March 2013. Specifically, the 

OIG found that for fiscal years 2009 – 2011, $12,084 was spent for furnishings 

and redecorating of this former Chairman’s office suite. 

The agency lacks a policy to ensure the $5,000 limit is not exceeded for each 

Commissioner. Specifically, there is no agency policy to provide the 

Commissioners and the responsible agency officials with guidance on the type of 

expenditures that are applied to the $5,000 limit, and to stipulate that the limit 

applies to the suite of offices assigned or under the control of the Commissioners. 

Further, the Office of Management Services (OMS) has not maintained adequate 

documentation on Commissioners’ expenditures for furnishing, redecorating and 

making improvements to Commissioners’ offices. The OIG found the Office of 

Budget and Finance (OBF) addressed the recommendation made in a prior OIG 

report of recording purchases for the Commissioners; however, the controls in 

place are inadequate and did not include a log of all expenses. 

Recommendations 

1. The Office of Management Services should be the primary office to maintain 

an expense log for each Commissioner, which should include a record of all 

purchases made, especially items to be applied against the $5,000 statutorylimit. 

2. The Offices of the Commissioners should ensure that requests for goods and 

services are documented via email or some written form to the Office of 

Management Services. 

3. The Office of Management Services should provide annually the 

Commissioners their expense log of all purchases that are allocated to the 

$5,000 statutory limitation. 

4. The Commission should update Commission Order 108, Personal Property 

Management, to address the $5,000 limit to furnish, redecorate or make 

improvements for the suite of offices of Presidential-appointees. 

5. The Commission should make a report as required by the Antideficiency Act 

on the apparent violation as a result of exceeding the $5,000 limit and failing 

to provide advance notice to Congress, or contact GAO and request an opinion. 

FMC Management agreed with all five of the OIG’s recommendations. 

[

1 The OIG commenced this audit on April 25, 2013, but due to the separation of 

the OIG’s auditor-in-charge in December 2013, the audit was put on hold until June 

2015, after a new auditor joined the OIG.] 
Table	of	Contents	

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
	

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1
	

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 2
	

The Antideficiency Act............................................................................................................... 4
	

Review of Kitchen Galley Renovations and Improvements ....................................................... 5
	

FINDINGS...................................................................................................................................... 6
	

Finding 1. Exceeding the Commissioner’s $5,000 Statutory Limitation .................................... 8
	

Finding 2. Followup to Prior OIG Audit Report...................................................................... 10
	

RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 10
	

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation....................................................................................... 11
	

OIG Response to Agency’s Comments Provided on September 25, 2015 ............................... 11
	

OIG Response to Commissioner Lidinsky’s Comments Provided on September 10, 2015 ..... 11
	

Appendix A - OIG Audit of Commissioners’ Expenditures ......................................................... 13
	

Appendix B - Agency Response ................................................................................................... 16
	

Appendix C - Commissioner Lidinsky's Response ....................................................................... 19
	
 

 

 

Audit of Expenditures for Furnishing or Redecorating Commissioners’ Offices 

EXECUTIVE	SUMMARY

The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) Office of Inspector General (OIG) completed 

an audit of expenditures for furnishing, redecorating or making improvements to the 

Commissioners’ offices of the FMC. The OIG decided to perform this audit, after the FMC OIG 

received a request on May 9, 2012, from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform to provide a complete account for all purchases made for the 

then-Chairman1. The OIG’s audit determined that the $5,000 statutory limit to furnish or 

redecorate, or to purchase furniture or make improvements to a Presidential-appointee’s offices 

was exceeded for the former Chairman; this former Chairman served as FMC Chairman from 

September 2009 to March 2013. 

BACKGROUND	

The Commission has five (5) full-time Commissioners appointed by the President with 

advice and consent of the Senate. The Commissioners are appointed for 5-year, staggered terms 

and one (1) member is designated by the President to serve as Chairman. Although each 

Commissioner serves a five-year term, that member can be reappointed or held over until a new 

Commissioner is appointed2. The current Commissioners have served varying lengths of time at 

the FMC, with the longest-serving Commissioner appointed in 2002. The other Commissioners 

were appointed in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013, respectively. 

To ensure Presidential-appointees do not expend taxpayers’ dollars for lavish office suites, 

laws have been in place to limit amounts to be spent on office redecorating and improvements to 

a maximum of $5,000. The Appropriations Acts for years 2009, 2010, and 20123, provide that 

1

 The then-Chairman was initially sworn in as one of five Commissioners in July 2009, and appointed by the 

President of the United States as Chairman of the Commission in September 2009. The then-Chairman resigned to 

his previously-held position of Commissioner in March 2013. 

2

 The Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014 made certain amendments to Section 

301(b) of title 46, United States Code, for term limits of FMC Commissioners appointed and confirmed by the 

Senate on or after the enactment of the amendments. 

3

 For fiscal years 2011 and 2013, the Federal Government was under a Continuing Resolution; therefore, FY 2010 

and FY 2012, appropriations authorities and conditions were in effect, respectively. 

1 
 

agencies and departments may not obligate or expend in excess of $5,000 to furnish or redecorate, 

or to purchase furniture or make improvements for Presidential appointees’ offices. Specifically, 

the law states the following: 

During the period in which the head of any department or agency, or any 

other officer or civilian employee of the Federal Government appointed by 

the President of the United States, holds office, no funds may be obligated 

or expended in excess of $5,000 to furnish or redecorate the office of such 

department head, agency head, officer, or employee, or to purchase 

furniture or make improvements for any such office, unless advance notice 

of such furnishing or redecoration is transmitted to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. For the 

purposes of this section, the term ‘‘office’’ shall include the entire suite of 

offices assigned to the individual, as well as any other space used primarily 

by the individual or the use of which is directly controlled by the individual. 

 Each of the Commissioners is to adhere to the $5,000 limit as long as they hold office as 

a Presidential-appointee at the Commission. In our testing, we considered expenditures applied 

to the $5,000 limit to include furniture; framing and matting of pictures; commissioned artwork; 

and improvements within the entire office suite of the respective Commissioners. 

The Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (the “Green Book”), 

September 2014, sets internal control standards for federal entities. Internal control helps an entity 

run its operations efficiently and effectively; report reliable information about its operations; and 

comply with applicable laws and regulations. Further, the Green Book states “Transactions are 

promptly recorded to maintain their relevance and value to management in controlling operations 

and making decisions.... In addition, management designs control activities so that all transactions 

are completely and accurately recorded.” It is important for the agency to adhere to these standards 

to ensure the expenditures associated with the $5,000 limit are properly and timely recorded, and 

reported. 

OBJECTIVES,	SCOPE,	AND	METHODOLOGY	

Our overall objective was to determine whether the Commission complies with the 

applicable law regarding expenses associated with furnishing, redecorating, or making 

improvements to Commissioners’ offices. We specifically performed this audit to determine 

whether the Commissioners were within their $5,000 statutory-limit and to determine whether 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

these expenses are recorded and tracked during the complete term, reappointment or hold over of 

office for each Presidential-appointee. The OIG commenced the audit on April 25, 2013, but due 

to the separation of the OIG’s auditor-in-charge in December 2013, the audit was put on hold until 

June 2015, after a new auditor joined the OIG. 

To address our objectives, we reviewed the Office of Inspector General (OIG) report dated 

March 18, 2008, A08-04, Review of Expenses to Furnish, Redecorate or Improve the Offices of 

Federal Maritime Commissioners. Specifically, we reviewed the recommendation for the Office 

of Budget and Finance (OBF4

) to track purchases and improvements for Commissioners’ offices. 

We also reviewed Commission Order 108, Personal Property Management, dated March 9, 2005, 

to determine the Commission’s policy as it relates to the Presidential-appointees’ statutory limit. 

However, the OIG found this policy is silent on the control of purchases for Presidential-appointees 

and the $5,000 limit for furnishing, redecorating and making improvements to their offices. 

We obtained access to the Commission’s purchase card service provider. This access 

provided us with purchase card transactions made by staff in the Office of Management Services 

(OMS) during the periods of July 2009 – May 2013. We judgmentally sampled merchant 

descriptions that fell into the categories of photographic services; specialty stores; professional 

services; commercial furniture; and office supplies for each fiscal year. From the sample, we 

compiled a control sheet that included the purchase card statement dates, merchant name, merchant 

description, amount of the transaction and obligating document number(s). We reviewed and 

verified the obligating document files, including invoices or receipts, and the documented 

description of the items purchased and for whom. We also performed an inventory of items 

purchased for the Commissioners. 

We interviewed OMS staff to obtain the process of procurement for the Commissioners 

and to get clarification on transactions to determine for whom the items were purchased when 

receipts/invoices did not clearly indicate the intended staff. We also interviewed staff in OBF to 

determine their process to record transactions for maintaining the “Commissioners’ Furniture 

Purchases” log. 

4

 Formerly named Office of Financial Management. 

3 
 

 

 

In March 2013, we obtained an opinion from the Commission’s General Counsel (GC) on 

the statutory limit and whether the limit applies for reappointments and/or change of status (i.e., 

Commissioner to Chairman) or hold over. We also requested from the GC whether the 

Commission provided the requisite advance notice to the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate for furnishing or redecorating expenditures that exceeded 

the $5,000 limit. The GC informed the OIG that the GC had no record of submission of the 

advance notice. 

The GC also opined on whether the $5,000 limit is renewed when a sitting Commissioner 

is selected as the Chairman. The opinion states that “[I]f a sitting Commissioner is designated as 

Chairman, per 46 U.S.C. §301(c)(1), that individual would hold a different statutory office than 

the previously-occupied office of Commissioner.” Therefore, he/she “would be subject to the 

expense limitation anew during the period that the individual held the office of Chairman.” 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions, based on our 

audit objectives. 

The Antideficiency	Act	

The OIG’s audit determined that the agency expended in excess of $5,000 to furnish, 

redecorate and make improvements to the offices of the former Chairman. Further, the OIG found 

no evidence to indicate the agency provided advance notice of such excess for furnishing and 

redecoration to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. 

As a result, the OIG believes the agency may have violated the Antideficiency Act (ADA). The 

ADA prohibits federal agencies from obligating or expending federal funds in advance or in excess 

of an appropriation, and from accepting voluntary services. 

On August 7, 2015, the OIG contacted the Government Accountability Office to determine 

whether an agency’s violation of the statutory $5,000 limit and/or failure to notify Congress in 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advance of expending in excess of $5,000 could result in an ADA violation. While GAO could 

not provide a verbal opinion on whether a violation occurred, GAO recommended the agency (or 

OIG) seek a written opinion on whether a violation of the ADA occurred based on the specific 

facts in this matter, as necessary. If it is determined there has been an ADA violation, the agency 

head shall report immediately to the President and Congress all relevant facts and a statement of 

actions taken; the report to the President is to be forwarded to the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget, and a copy to the Comptroller General as well. 

Review	of	Kitchen Galley	Renovations	and	Improvements	

The OIG reviewed renovations costing $9,708 to the former Chairman’s Kitchen Galley in 

2010. The space was under the control of the former Chairman and the space was designated by 

a placard on a wall as the “Chairman’s Galley.” For purposes of the $5,000 limit for Presidential 

appointees, the term “office” includes the “entire suite of offices assigned to the individual, as well 

as any other space used primarily by the individual or the use of which is directly controlled by 

the individual.” 

The OIG reviewed the records on the Chairman’s Galley renovations to determine whether 

the expenditures would be applied towards the former Chairman’s $5,000 statutory-limit. The 

Commission has a lease agreement in place for its headquarters office space through the General 

Services Administration (GSA). The lease for fiscal years 2010 – 2012, and partial fiscal years of 

2009 and 2013, allocates annual tenant improvements that totaled $292,340 for items such as, but 

not limited to, re-carpeting, moving of walls, electrical, painting, etc. The annual tenant 

improvement amounts in the lease agreement can be drawn-upon to make the needed 

improvements. 

The original scope of the renovation work for the Chairman’s Galley was to remove and 

dispose of existing cabinet doors and drawer fronts; remove and dispose of one (1) damaged 

existing upper cabinet; remove and dispose of existing counter tops and back splashes; patch, 

prime, and paint walls of pantry; and paint the existing pantry door. The agency was to choose the 

finishes for the project, to include: paint colors, cabinet doors, counter tops, drawer fronts and door 

pulls. The agency provided the OIG with a March 8, 2013 email from OMS staff that stated 

mildew was on areas of the counter, and the galley was renovated to fix and replace broken cabinets 

5 
 

 

 

 

and overhead doors that were unstable and unsafe; however, the proposal did not specify the 

removal of the mildew from any countertops or any special instructions or costs needed for its 

removal. 

After further review in July 2015, and discussions with OMS, the OIG determined that the 

kitchen galley renovations were paid out of the tenant improvements allowance incorporated in 

the lease agreement. Further, an agency GC opinion dated March 11, 2013 to the Interim IG, 

concluded that the repair of furnishings and fixtures that are broken or dilapidated does not 

constitute “furnish[ing],” “redecorate[ing],” “purchas[ing] furniture,” or “mak[ing] 

improvements” under section 713 of Public Law 112-74. Therefore, the OIG concluded the 

renovation costs to the former Chairman’s Galley did not count towards the $5,000 limit. 

FINDINGS	

We found through testing of purchase card transactions and inspection of Commission 

offices, the $5,000 limit on furniture and related expenses was exceeded in fiscal year 2010 for the 

former Chairman’s suite of offices. This former Chairman served as FMC Chairman from 

September 2009 – March 2013. For fiscal years 2009 – 2011, $12,0845 was spent for furnishings 

and redecorating of his office suite. Among the items included in this total are purchases for 

furniture in the former Chairman’s office and reception area of his office suite ($ 6,009); matting 

and/or framing of several pictures ($ 1,713); a commissioned artwork recognizing the agency’s 

50th anniversary mounted in the former Chairman’s office ($ 3,100), Exhibit 1; and ceiling recessed 

lights for commissioned artwork in the former Chairman’s office ($ 1,260), Exhibit 2. OMS failed 

to report multiple transactions that should have been counted against the $5,000 statutorylimitation, due to a lack of understanding of the law, and the absence of an agency policy. 

5

 This amount is exclusive of items purchased in the amount of $137.50, during his tenure as Commissioner in 2009. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 1 - Commissioned Artwork Exhibit 2 - Installation of Lights 

Source: OIG Source: OIG 

The OIG interviewed the former Chairman in August 2015 regarding the expenditures 

related to his office as Chairman. The former Chairman acknowledged that the Office of 

Management Services (OMS) advised him of the $5,000 limit; however, the former Chairman 

stressed that OMS neglected to provide him with specific guidance or definitions on the types of 

expenditures that would be applied to the $5,000 limit. Further, the former Chairman stated that 

neither OMS or the Office of Budget and Finance provided him with an account of his expenditures 

or notified him that he was nearing his $5,000 limit. Initially, the former Chairman believed the 

expenditures applied to the $5,000 limit included an executive chair ($ 1,009); Commissioned 

artwork ($ 3,100), and picture framing ($ 96). However, after the OIG provided the former 

Chairman the statutory language on the $5,000 limit and discussed the matter, the former Chairman 

did not dispute any specific expenditures that are listed in the attached appendix A. 

Among the expenditures applied to the former Chairman’s $5,000 limit are recessed lights 

installed in his former office in January 2011. According to the former Chairman, and an OMS 

representative, the lights were installed in a sitting area in the former Chairman’s office. Based on 

a discussion with OMS, the commissioned artwork (Exhibit 1) was hanging in this sitting area. 

According to the former Chairman, the lights were installed at his request, to brighten the sitting 

area and picture, and the style of lights was selected by the former Director of OMS. Although 

the OIG does not dispute the lights were installed in the sitting area, the OIG has concluded the 

cost of the lights should be applied to the former Chairman’s $5,000 limit. The OIG reached this 

conclusion because it is our view that the primary purpose for the installation of the lights was to 

7 
 

 

 

 

illuminate the commissioned artwork hanging in the sitting area. Specifically, the type of lights 

installed are referred to as “wall wash” recessed lights; these lights have a shield over half the light 

to evenly focus light on a specific feature, such as a fireplace or a painting. 

Finding	1.	Exceeding	the	Commissioner’s	$5,000	Statutory	Limitation

The agency lacks a policy to ensure the $5,000 limit is not exceeded for each 

Commissioner. Specifically, there is no agency policy to provide the Commissioners and the 

responsible agency officials with guidance on the type of expenditures that are applied to the 

$5,000 limit, and to stipulate that the limit applies to the suite of offices assigned or under the 

control of the Commissioners. Further, the Office of Management Services (OMS) has not 

maintained adequate documentation on Commissioners’ expenditures for furnishing, redecorating 

and making improvements to Commissioners’ offices. Based on discussions with agency 

management, OMS lacked specific guidance or definitions of the allowable expenses for 

furnishing and redecorating of the Commissioners’ offices. For example, missing transactions in 

the expense log were due to OMS’ failure to classify the matting and framing of pictures, and 

furniture for the reception area of the former Chairman, as expenses that count against the $5,000 

limitation. In addition, supporting documentation, such as an invoice, was not maintained for two 

of three items purchased for the Commissioners. 

The OMS is responsible for procuring, securing and/or furnishing all supplies, equipment 

and services required in support of the agency’s mission, and arranging for facilities management 

and security. In order for OMS to purchase goods and services, most offices, with the exception 

of the Commissioners, initiate a requisition for purchases in the procurement system. The 

Commissioners usually make their requests for furnishings and services by email or verbally; 

however, most were apparently made verbally to OMS staff. OMS staff uses the Commissioners’ 

requests to procure the requested items by creating a requisition in the procurement system or 

using an existing blanket purchase agreement to make the purchase(s) on the purchase card. 

To strengthen the controls of this process, OMS needs to maintain a log of the purchases 

made for each Commissioner. Without proper recording of the transactions by OMS, there is no 

assurance that all expenses against the $5,000 limitation are recorded accurately. By maintaining 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the log for the Commissioners’ purchases, it will help ensure adherence to the law that governs 

their purchases for the redecorating and furnishing of their offices, which is particularly important 

as a Commissioner approaches the $5,000 spending limit. 

Table 1. Comparison of OIG Audit vs OBF Purchase Log – (July 2009 – May 2013) 

Commissioners Total Furnishing 

Amounts - OIG 

OBF*

Commissioner A $ 133.25 0 

Commissioner B $ 935.25 0 

Commissioner C $ 2,736.50 0 

Commissioner D $ 367.25 0 

Commissioner E $ 12,084.10 $ 4,360.79 

 Source: OIG analysis of FMC expenses. 

*The Office of Budget and Finance (OBF) report of Commissioners’ expenditures 

is as of April 2013; however, there were no purchases for the Commissioners 

in May 2013, the end date of the OIG’s audit period of review. Therefore, for 

comparative purposes, the “Total Furnishing Amounts – OIG” and “OBF” column 

balances are up to April 2013. 

9 
 

 

Finding	2.		Followup	to Prior	OIG	Audit	Report

The OIG found the Office of Budget and Finance (OBF) addressed the recommendation 

made in a prior OIG report of recording purchases for the Commissioners; however, the controls 

in place are inadequate and did not include a log of all expenses. We obtained the 

“Commissioners’ Furniture Purchases” log, maintained by OBF, of the Commissioners’ purchases 

to determine how effectively the recommendation was implemented. The OBF is responsible for 

accounting and financial functions for the Commission, but is not aware of any specific purchases 

made for the Commissioners, unless notified by staff in OMS. The log includes the fiscal year, 

purchase order number, description of items, Commissioner’s name, the Commissioner’s current 

employment status and the purchase amount. OBF also maintains a running total of purchases 

made against the $5,000 limit. 

The “Commissioner’s Furniture Purchases” log maintained by OBF missed multiple 

transactions that should have gone against the statutory-limit because the information was not 

provided by OMS. 

RECOMMENDATIONS	

1.		 The Office of Management Services should be the primary office to maintain an expense 

log for each Commissioner, which should include a record of all purchases made, 

especially items to be applied against the $5,000 statutory-limit. This expense log should 

also include the invoices for purchases made and requests made by the Commissioners. 

Further, OMS should send a copy of the expense log to the Office of Budget and Finance 

(OBF). OBF should review for discrepancies and reconcile the log with OMS. 

2.		 The Offices of the Commissioners should ensure that requests for goods and services are 

documented via email or some written form to the Office of Management Services. OMS 

staff should be required to document any oral requests received from a Commissioner. 

3.		 The Office of Management Services should provide annually the Commissioners their 

expense log of all purchases that are allocated to the $5,000 statutory limitation. 

10 
 

 

 

 

4.		 The Commission should update Commission Order 108, Personal Property Management, 

to address the $5,000 limit to furnish, redecorate or make improvements for the suite of 

offices of Presidential-appointees, to include guidance on items that count against the 

$5,000 limit. 

5.		 The Commission should make a report as required by the Antideficiency Act on the 

apparent violation as a result of exceeding the $5,000 limit and failing to provide advance 

notice to Congress, or contact GAO and request an opinion. 

Agency	Comments	and	OIG	Evaluation	

The OIG provided the draft report to agency management on August 27, 2015, and the 

agency responded with comments on September 25, 2015. The agency’s comments are attached 

in their entirety as appendix B. Because this audit reviewed the expenditures of the individual 

Commissioners’ offices, the OIG also provided a courtesy copy of the draft report to each of the 

five Commissioners, and Commissioner Lidinsky provided comments on September 10, 2015. 

Commissioner Lidinsky’s comments are attached in their entirety as appendix C. 

OIG	Response	to	Agency’s	Comments	Provided	on	September	25,	2015	

The agency concurred with all five of the OIG’s recommendations. The agency recognizes 

the need for improvements to the Commission’s recordkeeping processes and implementation of 

written policy guidance on the Commissioners’ office suite expenditures. The OIG believes the 

agency’s planned corrective actions demonstrate a commitment to address the weaknesses 

identified during this audit. 

OIG	Response	to	Commissioner	Lidinsky’s	Comments	Provided	on	September	10,	

The OIG appreciates the comments provided by Commissioner Lidinsky. The OIG would 

like to clarify comments received from Commissioner Lidinsky. First, Commissioner Lidinsky 

stated that he does not agree with the full list of expenditures (appendix A) being put in his “$5,000 

personal office expense account.” Further, Commissioner Lidinsky believes the only expenditures 

11 

2015		
 

 

 

 

by his office that should be applied to the $5,000 limit are the FMC 50th anniversary painting 

($3,100), an office chair ($1,000), and framing expenditures ($1,679.40). The OIG considered 

Commissioner Lidinsky’s comments, however, the OIG stands by the audit results and 

determination that the $5,000 statutory limit to furnish or redecorate, or to purchase furniture or 

make improvements to a Presidential-appointee’s offices was exceeded. 

In addition, the Commissioner commented on certain items that were brought over from 

FMC storage, to include the cleaning of leather furniture and reupholstering wingback chairs. The 

OIG did not include these items on our list of expenditures counted against the $5,000 limit. 

However, the OIG does believe that the reception workstation for the office suite is considered 

part of the Commissioner’s suite and is counted against the $5,000 limit. 

Lastly, the OIG appreciates Commissioner Lidinsky’s comments on the OIG’s 

recommendations. Specifically, the frequency of the Office of Management Services (OMS) 

preparation of the expense log of Commissioners’ purchases and the “decision process” for 

determining the type of Commissioner expenditures that are counted against the $5,000 limit on 

furniture and related expenditures. The agency has agreed to provide each Commissioner with 

their individual expense log on an annual basis and to notify a Commissioner when a request would 

bring the Commissioner’s total expenses within $1,000 of the $5,000 limit. The agency has also 

agreed to update Commission policy to address the $5,000 limit. The OIG believes these planned 

corrective actions will address the need for improvements to the recordkeeping of Commissioners’ 

expenditures and agency policy. 

12 
   

   

  

            

   

       

     

       

       

     

       

       

                 

   

       

       

       

       

         

                    

 

Appendix	A	‐	OIG	Audit	of	Commissioners’	Expenditures	
 

July 2009‐May 2013

Commissioners' Furnishing

Purchases Total Cost

Date of Purchase Description of Item(s) Amount

Commissioner A

2/14/13 Mat & frame Presidential

appointment

$133.25

Total cost for Commissioner A $133.25

Commissioner B

6/30/11 Executive chair $528

7/14/11 Mat & frame Presidential

appointment

129.25

7/26/11 Mat & frame 3 pictures 278.00

Total cost for Commissioner B $935.25

Commissioner C

2/22/10 Mat & frame Presidential

appointment

$127.25

5/26/10 Executive chair 1,808.80

12/21/11 Mat & frame Presidential

appointment

127.25

3/8/10 Library stand 304.20

Total cost for Commissioner C $ 2,367.50

Commissioner D

5/6/11 Mat & frame Presidential

appointment

$127.25

Date unavailable Mat & frame Presidential

appointment‐ estimated cost ‐

agency did not have record

120.00

Date unavailable Mat & Frame Presidential

appointment‐ estimated cost ‐

agency did not have record

120.00

Total cost for Commissioner D $ 367.25

13 
            

   

       

      

       

         

         

         

       

           

         

             

         

       

         

       

   

         

           

     

         

         

      

       

   

     

     

         

     

Commissioner E

Date of Purchase Description of Item(s) Amount

Cost of Framing

10/6/09 Framing of President's Letter

Designation to Former Chairman

$96.75

10/13/09 Framing of President Kennedy

reorganization plan #7 letter that

created FMC

201.40

10/22/09 Frame with glass for a print 69.00

6/23/10 Framing of historic maritime print

"Commodore Perry" provided by

the US Navy History & Heritage

Command

176.75

7/1/10 Printing of historic maritime image

from a CD provided by US Navy

History & Heritage Command on

canvas ‐ part of the 7/15/10

transaction

178.00

7/2/10 Frame US Shipping Board poster

purchased at then former

Chairman's personal expense

250.25

7/15/10 Framing of historic maritime image

on canvas provided by US Navy

History & Heritage Command

250.25

5/19/11 Frame for Artwork for former

Chairman

282.25

9/8/11 Framing of painting and picture

with President Obama

174.75

5/6/11 Frames for commissioned artwork

for former Chairman

33.90

Total Cost of framing $1,713.30

Commissioned Artwork

9/29/10 Partial payment for commissioned

artwork

1,000.00

10/13/10 Check Fee associated with 9/29

transaction

21.00

12/15/10 Final payment for commissioned

artwork

1,900.00

14 
       

              

         

       

         

   

         

       

           

         

       

     

       

          

Commissioner E (Cont.)

Date of Purchase Description of Item(s) Amount

12/15/10 Check Fee associated with 12/15

transaction

39.00

1/21/11 Payment for shipping of

commissioned artwork

132.27

1/21/11 Check Fee associated with 12/15

transaction

8.65

Total Commissioned Artwork $3,100.92

Installation of Lights

1/5/11 Installation of lights in former

Chairman's office

$1,260.00

Former Chairman's chairs and

reception workstation

9/29/09 2 chairs for former Chairman and

reception workstation for suite (2

part furniture)

4,941.51

1/25/10 Furniture for former Chairman's

support staff ‐ storage cabinet with

doors

1,068.37

Total for former Chairman's

Furniture

$6,009.88

Total cost for Commissioner E $ 12,084.10

15 
Appendix	B	‐	Agency	Response
 

16 
17 
18 
Appendix	C	‐	Commissioner	Lidinsky's	Response
 

19 
20