Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-10-09
SIGNING OF PAY ROLLS
Supplemental Statement by
the Health Officer.
AUDITORS RESPONSE
Mr.. GARRISON ARGUES IN SUP
PORT OF CHANGE.
Contends That Certificate Of Approving
Officer Cannot Extend Beyond
Date of Signature.

DIR. W. c. Woodward, the District health
officer. who has taken the lead in behalf
of department chiefs at the District build
ing in calling for an interpret alton of an
order emanat ting from the auditors office
regarding the signing of pay rolls. severa!
days ago submitted to the Commissioners
supplemental statement in support of his
contention. The new auditor Mr.. Garri-
son. decided that while pay rolls must be
made out in advance of the time appointed
for payment the certificate of the approx
ing officer could not extend to or cover
period of time subsequent to its date. In
other words, if the pay roll were approved
the Goth instant, and the employees paid
on the ;30th. there would be a period of ten
days not covered by the certificate. DR..
Woodward wanted to know who should be
responsible in case of error during this
period.
He suggested that the order of the Com
mssioners on the subject be modified
that the form of certificate be changed.
He declared that if the certifying officer
is not responsible for such errors may
occur between the date of approval and
the time of payment, there could be no
objection to changing the certificate to
read follows:
Il hereby certify that the above pay roll,
in SO far as 1t relates to services rendered
up to and including the date of this GER
tificate, is correct and just; that services
prior to and including this date
dered as stated; and that the rates set
forth are in conformity with law. In so
far as relates to payment for services
prior to and including the date of this
certificate. hereby approve this roll"
Unless the certificate be modified as
above suggested" said DR. Woodward, II
respectfully recommend that the order Of
the Commissioners of the 9th ultmo be
modified so that it will not require super
vising officers before approving any pay
roll to ascertain that the persons whose
names are borne on the pay rolls which
such officers approve have been actually
employed, etc
Mr.. Garrison's Argument.
The Commissioners referred the matter
again to the auditor, and he presented this
morning argument in support of his posi-
ton, in which he says:
Il do not think that officer who ap-
proves pay roll for salaries of annual
employees some days In advance of the date
to which the salaries such pay roll
computed can be held responsible for any
change which may occur subsequent to the
date of such approval whereby the amount
of any salary computed on the pay roll is
reduced. such as the death of an employe
before the date to which his salary has been
computed. the discharge of any employee to
take effect before such date. circum-
stances requiring the suspension or with
holding of the salary of such employee
In the event of the death of an employee
annual salary, before the date to which
his salary on the pay roll has been COM
puted, since the disbursing officer of the
District does not make any payments in
advance of the date to which the salary is
computed. he could only make payment of
the amount of salary due the deceased to
the date of his death, or to the executor.
la uf
thorized to receive the same in behalf of
the decedentS estate. In the case of the
discharge of an employe, or an order for
the suspension or Withholding of his sal
ary ii would be the duty of the officer who
approved the pay roll TO notify the auditor
and the disbursng officer Immediately of
such discharge or suspension of pay.
For these reasons l do not think 1t nee
essary or advisable to change or qualify
the form of certificate of approval to pay
rolls of District employees This form of
certificate has been long In use. and has
been accepted without objection by the &C
counting officers of the treasury.
In order that employees of the District
on annual salaries should receive their pay
on the 18th of each month and at the close
thereof, or shortly thereafter. 1t has been
the practice to certify and approve the pay
rolls OF such employees some days in ad-
vance of the date to which the respective
salaries are computed.
Any change in this practice which would
prevent such employees from receiving pay
would no doubt work serious Inconvenience
A similar practice prevails in the executive
departments Of the government of paying
the salaries of annual employees on the 18th
of each month and at the close thereof The
pay rolls are necessarily certified and ap-
proved some days in advance of the dates
to which the salaries are computed and
such certihcation and approval is without
qualification.
Form Not Questioned.
The auditor has raised no question as to
the form of the certificate of approval of
pay rolls.
The important matter which concerns the
audltor IS that he must necessarily RELY en-
ureiy upon the certificate of the approving
officer to establish the fact that the persons
whose names appear upon pay roll are
rendering service and entitled to pay for
the respective periods to which the salary
or pay iS computed AS a rule the paw rolls
as certified and approved are found correct
as to the period of service certified vet IL
sometimes happens that errors In this re-
spect are found in pay rolls which have
been duly approved and forwarded to the
auditor
"A In point recently occurred
wherein the approving officer discovered
that one employee borne upon n payroll
which he had certified, approved and trans
mitted to the auditor was not entitled to
any pay for the month because he had not
rendered any service. The approving Of
f1cer called upon the auditor and corrected
the pay roll before 1t had been sent to the
dlsbursing officer for payment. In some
recent cases also Ii was discovered before
payment that the time OF certain laborers
as certified on the pay rolls was in excess
rendered and pay due"
The matter is before the Commissioners