Opinion ID: 507855
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Multi-Purpose Conferences

Text: 16 The Secretary disallowed expenditures for 23 conferences that the auditors found to be for general educational purposes rather than for Title I purposes (multi-purpose conferences). The auditors did not dispute that portions of these multi-purpose conferences may have been directly related to Title I purposes. Department regulations, however, only permit reimbursement of conference and meeting expenses when the primary purpose of the meeting is the dissemination of technical information relating to the grant program, 34 C.F.R. pt. 74, App. C, pt. II, B.19c (1980), and when the training offered is [d]irectly related to the Title I services to be provided during the school year. 34 C.F.R. Sec. 200.75 (1981) (earlier version at 45 C.F.R. Sec. 116.36(a) (1980)). The Secretary adopted and affirmed the Board's decision, which stated that [a]genda submitted show the conferences to be of a general nature ... not primarily related to Title I purposes. (emphasis added). 17 We recently upheld the Secretary's decision to disallow the same type of expenditures, over the same objections California presented in this case. California, Dep't of Educ. v. Bennett, 833 F.2d 827, 832 (9th Cir.1987). At oral argument, California conceded that the multi-purpose conference expenditures at issue here are controlled by this decision. California admitted that the record in the present case contains no greater evidentiary support for its position than what we determined was inadequate in our previous California v. Bennett case. See id. We therefore affirm the Secretary's disallowance of California's expenditure of Title I funds for these multi-purpose conferences for the same reasons set forth in our earlier opinion. Id