Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!


Judicial Watch • USMarshal



Page 1: USMarshal


Number of Pages:104

Date Created:November 4, 2013

Date Uploaded to the Library:November 06, 2013

Tags:promotional, conferences, APPROVING, component, ATTENDING, Planning, Attachment, purchase, GSA, policy, justice, conference, federal, State Department, DOJ, department, EPA, IRS, ICE, CIA

File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

U.S. Department Justice
Office the Inspector General Review the
U.S. Marshals Service
Use Appropriated Funds 
Purchase Promotional Items
Office the Inspector General
Oversight and Review Division
November 2013
Table Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................
Introduction ......................................................................................
Methodology the Investigation .......................................................
Applicable Statutes and Regulations .................................................	
Gifts ........................................................................................	
Awards ....................................................................................	
IV. U.S.C. 1301 and the Necessary Expense Doctrine ............
Official Reception and Representation Expenses ......................
Background Regarding the U.S. Marshals Service .............................	
The Investigative Operations Division.......................................
The USMS Procurement Process ............................................
Factual Findings .............................................................................	
IOD Purchases Promotional Items, 2005-2010 .................	
Financial Analysis IOD Promotional Items
Purchases between 2005-2010 .....................................
Witness Accounts Regarding IOD Purchases and
Uses Promotional items ............................................
Selected IOD Purchases Promotional Items ........................	
Challenge Coins ...........................................................
Christmas Ornaments ..................................................
Neckties and Silk Scarves .............................................
Retirement Awards .......................................................
The New York/New Jersey Regional Fugitive Task Force ........
Actions Taken After the Complaint.........................................	
JMD Seminars .............................................................
Suspension USMS Promotional Items Purchases ......
The Department Issuance Policies and Guidance 
Regarding the Purchase Promotional Items ...............
USMS Policy Directive 1.2 ............................................
Analysis and Recommendations ......................................................
The Department Justice Office the Inspector General (OIG)
conducted review purchases promotional items, also known
 swag, the Investigative Operations Division (IOD) the United States
Marshals Service (USMS). This review was initiated response
anonymous letter the OIG alleging that senior managers IOD had spent
excess end year funding promotional items including, among other
things, silk ties, pillows, and various items bearing the USMS name and
seal. found that the IOD spent least $793,118 promotional items
during fiscal years 2005 2010 and that these expenditures were excessive
and, some instances, contravention Department Policies and
Government Accountability Office (GAO) decisions and guidance.
Furthermore, IOD spending promotional items increased 975
percent during the 6-year period examined the OIG and vastly outpaced
the growth the USMS appropriation during the same period.
illustration some the IOD spending, found that six years the
IOD branches spent $155,081 USMS challenge coins, $11,338
neckties and silk scarves bearing the USMS seal, $13,605 USMS-themed
Christmas ornaments, $16,084 USMS-themed blankets and throws, and
$36,596 USMS lapel pins. found that the growth spending promotional items was the
result the absence internal controls and accountability within the
USMS, and the failure USMS personnel who were given purchasing
responsibilities exercise good judgment. Furthermore, the spending
some promotional items was not allowable under Department regulations
GAO guidance, that certain promotional items purchased the IOD
could not considered necessary expenses for the USMS fulfill its
congressionally mandated missions. examining promotional items that were used gifts publicize
the USMS, found that some items, such the Sex Offender
Investigation Branch (SOIB) challenge coins, arguably served
authorized purpose reminding the recipient that the SOIB was available assist local law enforcement agencies with unregistered sex offenders.
However, the coins did not provide the recipient with specific information
about the SOIB its activities, apart from its name, and therefore might
not considered necessary expense. found that other promotional
items, such silk scarves, were purchased using appropriated funds and
distributed for the purpose promoting goodwill. Under applicable
statutes and policies, these items should have been purchased using
Representation and Reception funds funds), which, under USMS
guidelines, were subject strict controls and documentation and annual
budgetary cap determined Congress. Had the USMS applied these
 goodwill purchases the fund, would have exceeded Congress
legislated cap.
Witnesses told that they used promotional items such challenge
coins reciprocate the receipt similar gifts from law enforcement officials other agencies who worked with USMS. The GAO has stated that gifts
which are intended promote reciprocal respect, goodwill, and cooperation
between federal agency and its state local level counterparts are not
necessary expenses. 1993 USMS memorandum stated that the practice
exchanging promotional items may justified essential the [USMS
mission since the practice exchanging these items widespread and
the lack reciprocity would have impact mission success. Several
witnesses with whom spoke expressed similar justifications for this
practice. are skeptical the justifications provided and found
that eliminating the practice funding the routine exchange promotional
items would not likely undermine the USMS ability obtain retain
other law enforcement agencies cooperation. found that promotional items also were distributed informal
awards both USMS employees and task force officers assigned Regional
Fugitive Task Forces their local agencies, given out gifts USMS
managers build morale, and disseminated retirement and ceremonial
gifts. While using the promotional items informal awards did not clearly
violate USMS policies place during the period time that examined, found that distributing promotional items, such Christmas
ornaments, gifts build morale was unnecessary expense and that
appropriated funds should not have been used purchase such items.
regard retirement and ceremonial gifts, found that while the
cumulative budgetary impact these purchases was small, there were
instances excessive spending, such the purchase $149 lamb wool
blankets and custom boxes with USMS seal and $125 crystal statues. January 21, 2011, the Attorney General issued directive all
Department components reduce expenditures only mission-essential
programs, projects and activities. June 17, 2011, e-mail sent all
USMS management, which referenced Attorney General Holder
directive, USMS Chief Financial Officer Albert Hemphill stated that USMS
was developing promotional items policy and that all expenditures for
[promotional items] [were] suspended pending issuance formal policy. 
The Department and the USMS subsequently issued policies that provide
explicit guidance the purchase and use promotional items the
iii found that the new policies will encourage restraint and enhance
accountability with respect the purchase these types items.
However, also found that the USMS policy contains flaws that the USMS
should rectify. For instance, the USMS Policy authorizes gifts
promotional items employees and others for contribution services
the USMS, and for participation/performance USMS conferences
training events, which broader standard than allowed Department
and GAO guidance. The USMS Policy also authorizes the purchase items
for the express purpose reciprocating similar gifts from other agencies
 and foster and maintain cooperation and goodwill, which also
contrary Department and GAO guidance. are recommending (1) that the USMS revise its promotional items
policy for the purpose making consistent with the Department
policies, (2) that the USMS should enhance its new internal controls for
monitoring the purchase and use promotional items ensure compliance
with its own and Department policies, and (3) that the USMS should direct
the IOD and its branches conduct full inventory promotional items
currently hand.
Introduction October 2010, anonymous author sent letter the
Department Justice Office the Inspector General (OIG) alleging, among
other things, that senior managers the United States Marshals Service
(USMS) were spending excess end year funding swag. The writer
specifically alleged that senior managers the USMS Investigative
Operations Division (IOD) had authorized the purchase approximately
400-500 silk ties with the USMS seal and star outlined within the pattern,
approximately 200 hand embroidered pillows, and costly retirement gifts for
senior managers.
Based upon the allegations made the anonymous letter, the OIG
examined the purchasing promotional items all the IOD branches.
This report divided into six sections, including this introduction.
Section provides overview the methodology used investigate
the anonymous writer claims. Section III examines applicable statutes
and regulations. Section provides some background information about
the USMS and Section contains our factual findings. Section
describe our overall conclusions regarding the IOD spending
appropriated funds promotional items and provide recommendations
the USMS help avoid repeating such activity the future.
Appendix contains the USMS response our report. Appendices through contain material described the body our report.
Methodology the Investigation investigate the issues raised the October 2010 anonymous
letter, the OIG conducted interviews individuals currently formerly
employed the USMS the Department Justice Management Division
(JMD). also received and reviewed more than 127,000 documents.
These documents included e-mails from the accounts current and former
USMS personnel, requisition requests and corresponding invoices for The anonymous letter was also sent the Acting Comptroller General the
United States, the Department Justice Office Management and Budget, the Acting
Deputy Attorney General, and the Assistant Attorney General for Administration.
 Swag slang term for promotional items that are often marked with
particular organization name logo and may given away. Some sources claim that
swag acronym for Stuff All Get Souvenirs, Wearables, And Gifts. this
report use the term promotional items interchangeably with swag. Examples
promotional items include clothing, coffee mugs, and the like. Another term sometimes
used for items this type trinkets.
promotional items purchased between 2005 and 2010, procurement
training materials provided the USMS JMD during procurement
training seminars, USMS guidance, and the current Department and USMS
policies covering promotional items, which did not exist during the period
time examined this report. also reviewed relevant information the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Redbook, (GAO Red book) which multi-volume treatise containing GAO decisions and opinions, judicial
decisions, statutory provisions, and other materials concerning federal
procurement law.
Applicable Statutes and Regulations U.S.C. 1301 and the Necessary Expense Doctrine
Pursuant the United States Constitution, federal agencies may only
spend money Congress has given them the explicit authority
through appropriation. U.S. Const. art appropriation
defined as: authorization act the Congress that permits Federal
agencies incur obligations and make payments out the
Treasury for specified purposes. appropriation usually
follows enactment authorizing legislation
Appropriations not represent cash actually set aside the
Treasury for purposes specified the appropriation act; they
represent limitations amounts which agencies may obligate
during the time period specified the respective appropriations
JMD, through its Office General Counsel, provides advice and assistance
senior Department and Department component officials relating Department policies for
budget and financial management, procurement and other matters relating organization,
management and administration. also responsible for providing legal advice regarding,
among other things, appropriations, budget and financial management, and procurement.
JMD provides this guidance and legal advice the Department and its components
through training seminars, which are provided component request, and through
 Financial Management Policies and Procedures Bulletins.
GAO independent nonpartisan agency that works for Congress and
investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. Its Office General
Counsel issues legal decisions, opinions, and reports appropriations law and other
matters. GAO opinions and legal decisions are not binding Executive Branch
departments, such the Department, Department components, such the USMS,
because agency Congress. However, GAO decisions and opinions provide
guidance the Department and its components regarding procurement matters and the
advice given JMD Department agencies.
Andrus Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 359 n.18 (1979), See also U.S.C. 701(2)
and 1101(2).
Chapter Title the United States Code governs
appropriations. Section 1301 Title states that appropriations may
only spent the objects for which they were legislated Congress.
However, Section 1301 does not require that permissible expenditures
specified the act setting forth agency appropriation. Consequently,
the spending agency has reasonable discretion determining how use its
GAO and the courts have consistently interpreted Section 1301
permit appropriation used pay any expense that necessary
incident the achievement the agency underlying objectives. This
known the necessary expense doctrine. Thus, where agency
believes that the expenditure bears logical relationship the objectives
the appropriation and will make direct contribution the agency
mission, the appropriation may used for such purpose.
Necessary expense determinations are evaluated light the
specific circumstances and statutory authorities, but the necessary
expense test sometimes articulated three-part rule:	
The expenditure must bear logical relationship the
appropriation sought charged. other words, must
make direct contribution carrying out either specific
appropriation authorized agency function for which more
general appropriations are available;
The expenditure must not prohibited law; and
The expenditure must not otherwise provided for, that is,
must not item that falls within the scope some other
appropriation statutory funding scheme. 1986 legal opinion, the Department Office Legal Counsel
(OLC) pronounced that Department component may spend money long U.S.C. 1301(a), see also U.S. General Accounting Office, Office the General
Counsel, Principles Federal Appropriations Law, 4-20 (3d ed. 2004) (GAO Red Book).
GAO Red Book 4-20.
GAO Red Book 4-21. See Lincoln Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 192 (1993), Int Union, United Auto., Aerospace Donovan, 746 F.2d 855, 861 (D.C. Cir. 1984), Matter Prize Drawing Gen. Serv.
Admin. Pub. Bldgs. Serv., B-242391, Comp. Gen. 720, Sep. 27, 1991 (Cash prizes for
providing information relating agency mission necessary expense under
U.S.C. 1301(a)), Matter Certification Voucher for Materials Used Savings Bond
Campaign, B-225006, June 1987, (Lump-sum appropriation may used fund limited
amounts promotional materials for savings bond campaign administratively determined necessary).
GAO Red Book 4-21. not prohibited from doing and the purchased items are reasonably
within the component purpose. The OLC opinion consistent with GAO
guidance, which states that expenditures are illegal the absence either
statutory authority adequate justification under the necessary
expense doctrine.
Gifts detailed below, some the promotional items purchased the
USMS were given away gifts. general rule, appropriated funds may
not used purchase personal gifts for government employees the
public. However, agency may want use appropriated funds for gifts attract attention the agency agency programs. Under the necessary
expense doctrine, described above, agency may purchase items the
nature gifts souvenirs only there direct link between the items
and the agency purpose for which Congress has appropriated funding.
Although GAO opinions are not binding the Department, found
several GAO decisions that provide useful guidance for analyzing the issues
raised the USMS purchases promotional items. one case, the GAO
examined expenditures Veterans Administration medical center
variety novelty items, such holiday rope pens, folding scissors, and
shoe laces imprinted with the medical center logo slogan, distribute support its recruiting efforts. The GAO held that gifts such these,
which act only favorable reminders and not provide recipients with
essential information about the agency, are not necessary expenses under
the doctrine. another GAO decision, the Director the Department
the Army sought procure marble paperweights and walnut plaques for
the purpose giving them appropriate governmental officials and other
individuals recognition their support for the United States Army
Criminal Investigation Command. justification for the expense, the
Army Director stated that mission essential cooperation [from other law
enforcement agencies was] maintained through the vehicle reciprocal
respect and that these items acted that vehicle. The GAO disagreed,
holding that gifts which are intended promote reciprocal respect,
GAO Red Book 4-26.
GAO Red Book 4-155. Matter Expenditures the Department Veterans Affairs for the Oklahoma
State Fair, B-247563.2 May 12, 1993. Matter Expenditures the Dept. Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Oklahoma
City, OK, B-247563.3, April 1996,
goodwill, and cooperation between federal agency and its state local
level counterparts are not necessary expenses. 1993, the USMS Office General Counsel transmitted
memorandum the Office Policy and Communications (the OGC
memorandum) for the purpose providing advice concerning the purchase promotional items. The OGC memorandum addressed the subject
gifts non-USMS personnel:
 Gifts non-USMS Persons Items nominal cost that have intrinsic value
function other than publicizing the agency may given
non-USMS personnel. Allowable items are buttons, patches,
lapel pins, sticker badges, pens and pencils. Gifts non-federal personnel other than the items noted [in above may made the Director from the reception
and representation fund. Gifts non-federal government persons may made where
essential the mission the agency. Allowable items are
caps, T-shirts, (inexpensive) cuff links, (inexpensive)
paperweights, mugs and items [A] above. (Emphasis
With respect the last category, the memorandum stated that gifts nonfederal officials may justified essential the mission since the
practice exchanging these items widespread and the lack
reciprocity would have impact mission success, but cautioned that
 this justification extremely restricted and should not used support
large purchases. The memorandum stated that higher cost items should carefully scrutinized and are generally not permitted. also
recommended that the requesting office for such purchases document the
use any promotional items the time purchase distribution. our review e-mails from the period covered this report and
witness interviews, found evidence that the OGC memorandum was
broadly disseminated within USMS, and found indication that was
Matter use U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC)
Appropriated Funds for Purchase Marble paperweights and Walnut Plaques, B-184306,
Comp. Gen. 346, October 1975.
The 1993 USMS OGC Memo the Office Policy and Communications
attached Appendix this report.
The Reception and Representation Fund addressed below Section III(D).
consulted connection with the purchases promotional items described this report.
Some the promotional items issue this investigation were
purportedly used reward USMS employees others for job well done.
Unlike the case with gifts, there explicit authority for certain employee
awards. The Federal Employees Incentive Awards Act (FEIA) allows federal
agencies provide incentive awards employees for superior
accomplishments and cost saving disclosures. Federal regulations under
the FEIA define award something bestowed action taken
recognize and reward individual team achievements that contribute
meeting organizational goals improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and
economy the government otherwise the public interest. The
FEIA does not limit the nature the awards and authorizes the use
merchandise awards, such coffee mugs. another GAO opinion offering guidance relevant this report, the
Naval Sea Systems Command proposed purchasing desk type medallions 
for the purpose awarding them its civilian and military personnel
recognition their significant accomplishments. The GAO concluded
that pursuant the Department Defense award policy the Navy had
issued appropriate guidelines for the distribution honorary awards, which
justified the purchase the desk type medallions. The GAO concluded
that light the FEIA and other authorities, the Naval Sea Systems
Command had the authority purchase the items and award them its
employees. December 14, 1978, the Department Justice issued its own
policy employee awards. The Department policy states that each DOJ
Component may create its own award program and that component heads,
such the Director the USMS, must ensure that there documentation
supporting any awards and that funds are available for their distribution.
Awards may given Department employees and honorary awards may given non-Department employees who perform service for the U.S.C. 4501-4509. C.F.R. 451.102. Matter Awarding Desk Medallion Naval Sea Systems Command, B-184306,
August 27, 1980.
DOJ 1451.1A, Dept. Justice, Office Mgmt Fin., Incentive Awards Program,
Department. Additionally, awards may only given from supervisors
The USMS OGC memorandum issued 1993 (discussed above with
respect gifts) also addressed employee awards. stated:
Awards Employees
USMS management authorized purchase traditional
awards (plaques, medallions lucite, etc.) well emblems,
picture frames, clocks, coffee mugs, desk sets, T-shirts,
paperweights, vinyl tablet portfolios, similar items that meet
the agency recognition needs, present employees bona
fide awards for their performance. (Performance distinct from
mere participation, for which authority exists make
awards) (Emphasis original).
Again, the OGC memorandum stated that [h]igher cost items should
carefully scrutinized and [are] generally not permitted. 
The USMS also addressed awards USMS Policy Directive 3.3
(September 27, 2007). states that the USMS awards program was
established recognize employees who, individually through team
effort, contribute meeting USMS-, DOJ- and/or government-wide goals. 
The policy states further that there should direct relationship between
organizational goal attainment and performance recognition. The types
awards contemplated the policy include cash payments, paid leave,
quality step increases, and specific Director Honorary Award, which
can cash honorary without cash. The policy has provision for
rewarding its employees with merchandise awards for awarding nonUSMS individuals, such Task Force Officers.
Official Reception and Representation Expenses detailed below, many witnesses told that promotional items
were sometimes given out members other law enforcement agencies
the public promote goodwill toward the USMS. Congress has
appropriated moneys agencies, known official reception and
representation funds funds), that allow agencies pay for
entertainment and similar expenses promote goodwill. Congress
defined official reception and representation expenses for DOJ official
expenses social nature intended whole predominant part
promote goodwill toward the Department its missions, accordance
Id., see also Pol. Proc. Bull. No. 11-04 (August 12, 2011).
GAO Red Book 4-136.
with distributions and procedures established, and rules issued, the
Attorney General.
Reception and representation expenditures must compliance
with DOJ Order 2110.31B (March 22, 2002). The Order states that
funds are authorized for expenses incurred the Department for
officials whose positions entail responsibilities for establishing and
maintaining relationships value the Department states further
that expenditures are authorized for the purpose of:	
Extending courtesies representatives foreign countries.
Funding official activities that further the Department
Hosting events and providing mementos state and local
officials and community leaders, furtherance the
Department interests. (Emphasis added).
DOJ Order 2110.31B also states that each component the
Department should establish procedures separately record and classify
expenditures funds. Furthermore, the Order directs each
component establish control procedures assure that the monetary
limitation set statute the Attorney General not exceeded. Id. 2009, the USMS issued written Reception and Representation
Guidelines. According Special Assistant the USMS Director Office,
the guidelines were only provided USMS employees who were requesting expend funds and were not disseminated throughout the agency.
These guidelines define reception and representation official agency
events, typically characterized mixed ceremonial, social and/or business
purpose relating the function the agency, and hosted formal sense high level agency officials. The Guidelines state that the events must
further the interests the USMS interacting and hosting various
individuals [with] whom and organizations with which the USMS officially
does business. The Guidelines also require that [a]ll expenditures
must approved the Director the USMS and all purchases made
accordance with DOJ procurement regulations.
The USMS guidelines not specifically state that purchasing
promotional items appropriate use funds. However, sub24 U.S.C. 530C(b)(1)(D).
The Special Assistant told the OIG that prior the written guidelines, all
requests use the funds were made through the USMS OGC and that USMS issued
the written guidelines 2009 because Congress increased USMS funding
$30,000 from $6,000.
heading entitled Documentation should include, the guidelines state that
for presentation gift the requesting employee should identify the
 [o]ccasion purpose the item and the [n]ame and title recipient. second sub-heading entitled [e]xamples permissible uses the
fund, the guidelines identify [e]xtending courtesies representatives
foreign countries state/local law enforcement officials, and [h]osting
events and providing mementos visiting dignitaries and community
leaders, furtherance USMS interests, both which could apply
promotional items. November 2005, Congress passed the Science, State, Justice,
Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. the Act Congress
appropriated approximately $800,000,000 the USMS and specifically
stated that $6,000 was available for official reception and representation
expenses. Over the next four years, Congress passed several continuing
resolutions and the USMS budget increased slightly, but the funds available
for reception and representation remained $6,000. March 2009,
Congress passed Omnibus Appropriations Act that increased the USMS
appropriation $950,000,000 and made $30,000 the
appropriation available for reception and representation expenses.
November 2011, Congress increased the USMS budget $1,174,000,000,
but reduced its fund back $6,000.
Background Regarding the U.S. Marshals Service
The USMS core missions are provide physical security
courthouses, safeguard witnesses, transport and produce prisoners for
court proceedings, execute court orders and arrest warrants, apprehend
fugitives, and seize forfeited property. All USMS duties and responsibilities
emanate from these core missions.
The Investigative Operations Division
The IOD one six operational divisions the USMS.
responsible for providing support both district and regional task forces Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Appropriation Act, Pub. No.
109-108 (2005).
Omnibus Appropriations Act, Pub. No. 111-8 (2009).
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, Pub. No. 112- (2011).
The other divisions include: Judicial Security Division, Witness Security Division,
Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System, Tactical Operations Division, and
Prisoner Operations Division.
assist the capture state, local, and federal felony fugitives; participating federal task forces; processing, reviewing, and coordinating the pursuit
and apprehension international fugitives and foreign fugitives; managing
the USMS Most Wanted Fugitives program; providing investigative and
intelligence support other USMS units; and providing support for USMS
districts assist identifying, targeting, investigating, and prosecuting
non-compliant sex offenders pursuant the Adam Walsh Act. The IOD
fulfills its mission through specialized branches, units and task forces,
Regional Fugitive Task Forces (RFTFs) The USMS currently
operates seven RFTFs that combine the efforts federal, state,
and local law enforcement agencies locate and arrest
dangerous fugitives and serve focal point for information
sharing fugitive matters. The large majority RFTF
members are Task Force Officers (TFO) assigned the RFTF state and local law enforcement agencies. The first RFTF
was the New York/New Jersey Regional Fugitive Task Force
(NY/NJ RFTF). The requisition activities this Task Force are
discussed Section V(C) this report.
Domestic Investigations Branch This branch responsible
for developing, managing and overseeing programs relating
domestic fugitive operations, such the Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) and the High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program.
International Investigations Branch This branch
responsible for tracking fugitives who flee the U.S. and locating
and apprehending fugitives wanted foreign nations
suspected being the U.S. Some the requisition practices this branch are discussed Section V(B) this report.
Sex Offender Investigations Branch (SOIB) 2006,
Congress designated the USMS the lead federal agency
locating sex offenders who fail register not comply with
their state registry requirements. The USMS launched the
SOIB 2009. Some the requisition practices this branch
are discussed Section V(B) this report.
Criminal Intelligence Branch This branch provides tactical
and strategic intelligence support criminal investigations,
manages data sharing projects with other agencies, provides
oversight law enforcement and commercial information
systems and tools used for investigations, and administers the
TFOs are not USMS employees, but report USMS Chief Inspectors who are
charge the RFTFs. The TFOs salaries are paid for the law enforcement agencies that
assign them the task forces.	
Justice Detainee Information System the USMS central law
enforcement information system.
Technical Operations Group (TOG) The TOG made
three branches that provide technical support the USMS
operational divisions and include Electronic Surveillance
Branch, Air Surveillance Branch, and Tactical Support Branch.
The IOD responsible for the Most Wanted Fugitives program,
which prioritizes the investigation and apprehension dangerous and highprofile fugitives. These cases are often referred IOD other USMS
components, other federal agencies, state and local police agencies, the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The IOD also ran other
programs through its branches during the period time examined this
report, including the Fugitive Safe Surrender program, which was
 initiative that encourage[d] persons wanted for non-violent felony
misdemeanor crimes voluntarily surrender the law enforcement
officials faith-based other neutral setting.
The USMS Procurement Process
When USMS employee determines the need purchase supply
service, she completes form entitled Requisition for Procurement
Supplies, Services, and Equipment, which also known USM-157.
The person doing referred the requester and fills the
necessary portions the form, including the request date, the delivery
address, description the item, and the object class code. The USM-157 then given requester unit administrative officer who determines
whether sufficient funds exist purchase the item, and, so, signs the
USM-157. After this, the administrative officer submits the USM-157 the
 approving officer, who usually senior USMS employee, such
section chief director, who then either approves denies the request.
Once the senior official approves the USM-157, the requester
purchases the items, which are then shipped the chosen destination.
After the items arrive, the requester another third-party verifies that all
items were received and then someone else conducts secondary
verification. The items are then put into storage.
For larger purchases, the USMS must obtain bids from least three
different vendors. However, the cost the purchase less than $3,000
for supplies $2,500 for services (known the micro-purchase level
the purchase can made USMS employees whom the USMS has
issued purchase cards, without obtaining competitive bids. All the
USMS requisitions for promotional items examined this report were
 micro-purchases, which not require competitive bidding, and paid for
using the requesters purchase cards.
The USMS uses object classes place requisition purchases into
categories for budgeting purposes. According numerous witnesses there
was object class specifically for promotional items and IOD employees
typically classified promotional items using miscellaneous supplies object
class, which acted catch-all for items without specific object class
Factual Findings
This section presents the factual findings from the OIG investigation. subpart discuss the overall purchase and use promotional items IOD, examining both data and testimony. subpart address
selected categories promotional items, including challenge coins,
Christmas ornaments, silk scarves, and neckties. subpart examine
the purchase and distribution promotional items single, selected
component the IOD the NY/NJ RFTF which was one the
components IOD that purchased and distributed the largest amount
promotional items.	
IOD Purchases Promotional Items, 2005-2010 this section, examine the amount appropriated funds the IOD
spent promotional items and the types and amounts promotional
items purchased the IOD.	
Financial Analysis IOD Promotional Items
Purchases between 2005-2010
Figure presents the amount appropriated funds that the IOD
spent promotional items, category, during each fiscal year from 2005 2010 and the total amount spent during that entire 6-year period. The
chart based upon review USMS requisition forms and/or invoices
submitted the USMS vendors that sold promotional items the IOD
The USMS provided the OIG with USM-157 requisition requests and
corresponding invoices relating the purchase promotional items. some instances,
USMS provided the requisition request without corresponding invoice invoice
without corresponding USM-157. included data from all the requisition documents received when creating Figures and
Figure Dollars Spent the IOD Branches Promotional Items,
Fiscal Years 2005-2010
Patches, Emblems,
Writing Implements
Pens Pen Sets
Other Stationary
Cufflinks Tie
TOTALS 6,615.85
296.60 3,838.19 4,625.20 2,984.78 8,099.90 6,025.86 12,590.89 29,872.01
198.06 9,644.52 32,309.96 1,573.88 18,609.53 73,559.07
800.73 43,290.50 155,081.99
8,895.13 90,958.41 3,044.50 5,494.67
645.00 7,005.38 1,340.50
4,242.83 6,970.28 14,463.23 36,596.32 27,050.84 4,908.15 4,109.00 6,956.24 20,692.64
7,586.65 15,048.30 59,300.98
776.50 3,340.10
59.85 5,949.11 2,637.61 7,975.50
335.00 11,228.25
133.75 4,523.25
226.50 12,541.63 4,022.79 10,425.65
553.50 11,746.45
611.69 10,900.39 12,968.56 4,178.00 3,162.00 1,880.10 29,766.90
947.96 17,056.98 17,794.46 2,932.00 1,056.00 1,784.48 71,285.34
1,663.65 35,528.02 57,027.52
Blankets Throws
Key chains, Tags
Stuffed Bears 3,222.50 2,655.00
3,958.79 16,084.57
513.30 4,050.00
107.00 2,901.72
1,206.24 21,543.86
Christmas Ornaments
6,108.25 13,605.95
Crystal Statues
Other: Not Itemized 2,366.08
102.00 5,867.00
630.50 4,236.62
134.00 13,858.31 5,200.50 3,044.63 40,696.00 25,193.55 1,317.56 45,208.77 19,417.32
4,992.69 106,467.78 55,812.37
TOTALS 29,138.62 47,536.87 67,256.36 127,806.99 208,186.19 313,193.46 793,118.49
8,789.60 revealed Figures and the growth IOD promotional items
expenditures from fiscal years 2005 2010 was dramatic. The amount
money that IOD spent promotional items increased percent
between fiscal years 2005 and 2006, percent between fiscal years 2006
and 2007, percent between fiscal years 2007 and 2008, percent
between fiscal years 2008 and 2009, and percent between fiscal years
2009 and 2010. Between fiscal years 2005 and 2010, 6-year period, the
total amount spent IOD promotional items increased 975 percent. described Sections IV(B) and (C), IOD did not have promotional items 
object class with which categorize these purchases the time they were purchased.
Instead, IOD employees used generic object class entitled miscellaneous supplies
categorize promotional items purchases. Based upon witness interviews and the definition promotional items developed the USMS Policy Directive 1.2, issued October
2011, and attached this report Appendix concluded that the items contained
this chart were promotional items.
Figure Total IOD Promotional Item Expenditures Fiscal Year
2010 fiscal year 2005, the IOD had 112 full-time operational employees
who, according witnesses, were position distribute promotional
items. That same year, illustrated Figure the IOD spent
$29,138.62 promotional items, $260.17 per operational employee. fiscal year 2006, the IOD spent $308.68 promotional items for each
its 154 operational employees. the next fiscal year, 2007, there were 206
full-time operational employees and the IOD spent $326.49 per operational
employee promotional items. fiscal year 2008, the IOD had 210
operational employees and spent average $608.61 per employee
promotional items. fiscal year 2009, the number operational
employees increased 259 and spending promotional items was
$803.81 per operational employee. The next fiscal year, the number
operational employees was 293 and spending promotional items
increased $1,068.98 per person. IOD spending promotional items
per operational employee more than tripled between fiscal years 2005 and
2010. Full-Time operational employees include deputy U.S. Marshals and others who
were position interact with other law enforcement agencies. does not include
administrative personnel. are not asserting this report that each full-time operational employee
distributed promotional items, but instead are expressing the cost promotional items per-employee basis give different perspective the magnitude these expenditures.
Figure presents the amount appropriated funds spent
promotional items the individual IOD components between fiscal years
2005 and 2010. The RFTFs accounted for percent total promotional
items purchased the IOD. The NY/NJ RFTF, which examined part this report, was responsible for percent the promotional items
purchased the RFTFs. just years, the Sex Offender Investigations
Branch spent $166,288.97 promotional items, which made
percent IOD total spending promotional items for all years.
Combined, the RFTFs and the SOIB accounted for percent all
purchases promotional items made IOD during the fiscal years.
Figure Total Promotional Items Expenditures IOD Division/Branch, Fiscal Years 2005-2010
Regional Fugitive Task
$528.00 $13,118.55
Branch total
$780.00 $22,026.60
$13,365.52 $44,277.24
$14,319.17 $44,521.38
$60,821.51 $161,799.12
$1,405.00 $10,151.00
Capital Area (CARFTF)
Gulf Coast (GCRFTF)
Great Lakes (GLRFTF)
Pacific Southwest
Southeast (SERFTF)
Florida (FRFTF)
Domestic Investigations
Branch (DIB)
International Investigations
$6,373.00 $12,445.08
Sex Offender Investigations
Branch (SOIB)
Criminal Intelligence Branch
Technical Operations Group
$47,536.87 $67,256.36
$45,241.55 $121,047.42 $166,288.97 $166,288.97
$127,806.99 $208,186.19 $313,193.46 $793,118.49 $793,118.49	
Witness Accounts Regarding IOD Purchases and Uses Promotional items
Witnesses from the IOD stated that during the 2005 2010 time
period neither the USMS nor the Department had specific policy regarding
the purchase, tracking, distribution promotional items. According
one witness, the IOD was relying the hope that its employees would use
 good judgment when purchasing promotional items. large majority
witnesses told that when promotional items were received they were
stored desk drawers, locked closets, and distributed IOD employees as-needed basis without identifying tracking who took the promotional
items, the number promotional items taken, the purpose for which the
promotional items would used, whom they would given.
Furthermore, the vast majority witnesses had knowledge, limited
knowledge, the fund. The former chief IOD Policy and
Programs Division told that there was policy limiting the amount
money that IOD could spend promotional items and the agency was not
required keep track the promotional items was purchasing and
The USMS had approved vendors that marketed and sold USMSthemed merchandise, including promotional items, through websites. The
retailers sold variety USMS-themed items, such challenge coins,
hats, stuffed animals, patches, T-shirts, sweatshirts, blankets, drink ware,
holiday ornaments, pens, cufflinks, lapel pins, clocks, watches, coasters,
plaques, medallions, podium banners, and crystal statues, among many
other types items.
IOD witnesses, including USMS managers and deputy U.S. Marshals,
told that they gave promotional items foreign and domestic dignitaries,
state and local law enforcement officers, chiefs police, non-USMS
individuals who provided assistance the USMS, federal officials from
other law enforcement agencies and TFOs assigned RFTFs. These
witnesses told they needed reciprocate similar gifts from their
counterparts other agencies. They also provided various justifications for
providing promotional items these individuals. Some witnesses stated
that promotional items were given people attending USMS conferences
thank them and provide the attendees with USMS contact information.
Others told that promotional items were given people express
USMS appreciation their assistance (or the assistance their agency)
during USMS investigations. Witnesses also told that they used
promotional items provide goodwill and promote the USMS and,
particular, their IOD branch, state and local law enforcement agencies for
the purposes securing the participation and support those agencies,
explaining the role the USMS and the Adam Walsh Act, developing
relationships, and convincing the law enforcement agencies work
partnership with the USMS various projects.
Several witnesses told that promotional items were used for
informal awards and given USMS employees and state and local TFOs.
While the USMS did not have specific policy promotional items,
described above Section III, both the Department and the agency did have
policies relating internal awards. According witnesses, those policies
only involved the awarding cash and paid leave and did not include the
distribution promotional items providing awards TFOs.
According Joanne Pearlman, attorney-advisor with the JMD
Office General Counsel, the USMS relies the public for help with
fugitive apprehensions and, certain extent, relies upon the goodwill
others perform its missions. She stated that the USMS has some
discretion how spend its appropriated funds and that USMS officials
have better sense what furthers the agency mission than others.
Consequently, according Pearlman, the USMS could document valid
reasons for the use promotional items and the promotional items
furthered the USMS mission, legal argument could made support
the USMS purchase the promotional items.
Selected IOD Purchases Promotional Items this section describe the IOD purchase selected categories promotional items between 2005 and 2010, including challenge coins,
Christmas ornaments, neckties and silk scarves, and retirement gifts.
Challenge Coins
Challenge coins are small coins medallions bearing
organization insignia emblem and are carried the organization
members. military setting, challenge coins are normally presented
unit commanders recognition special achievements members the
unit. Until recently, challenge coins were uniquely military, but law
enforcement agencies throughout the U.S. both the state and federal
level, including the USMS, have adopted their use. According several
USMS employees, challenge coins promoted unit pride.
Joanne Pearlman pseudonym. used pseudonyms throughout this report protect the privacy USMS and DOJ employees who are not current former Senior
Executive Service personnel.
Photo IOD Challenge Coins
Figures and show the annual number and cost challenge coins
purchased IOD during 2005 2010. shown the figures, the
different branches within IOD purchased 28,586 challenge coins for
$155,081.99 (an average cost $5.43 per coin) during this 6-year period.
The money used purchase these challenge coins came from funds
appropriated the USMS Congress. The amount appropriated funds
spent challenge coins between 2005 and 2010 increased 1000 percent.
Several witnesses told that every division and unit within the
USMS, including the Director and Associate Director the USMS, had
unique challenge coin. Robert Finan, former Associate Director for
Operations, who served that position from 2008 2011, told that
gave his associate director coin (depicted Photo visiting dignitaries,
such senior leadership officials from the California Judiciary. stated
that was not trying cement relationship with the officials, but
giving them challenge coin was being friendly. Finan also told that would give his challenge coins USMS employees who were leaving one his divisions retiring from the USMS. contractor who ordered many the challenge coins for the IOD told that the coins were used basically towards awards, and given
dignitaries and police departments that assigned officers fugitive task
forces. Other witnesses, including USMS managers and deputy U.S.
Marshals, made similar statements, telling that the challenge coins were
used for diplomacy, awards for local police officers assigned task forces,
 networking, pride, goodwill, and for promoting the different branches
task forces. The witnesses also told that obtaining the cooperation and
assistance local community leaders, law enforcement agencies, and
others paramount importance the functioning the USMS and that
This figure includes the cost the coin itself, set-up charges, and shipping and
handling expenses for the challenge coins. per-operational employee basis, the
volume coins purchased was coins per employee fiscal year 2005, coins fiscal
year 2006, coins fiscal year 2007, coins fiscal year 2008, coins fiscal year
2009, and coins per operational employee fiscal year 2010.
the ability give challenge coins other promotional items individuals
was valuable that effort. Others told that they simply traded challenge
coins with officers and agents from other domestic and foreign law
enforcement agencies.
The IOD purchased 14,026 challenge coins fiscal year 2010, which
was increase 8,429 (150 percent) over fiscal year 2009. One
explanation for that jump challenge coin expenditures was the creation
the SOIB late 2009, which was formed handle the USMS
responsibility under the Adam Walsh Act assisting state and local
jurisdictions with locating and apprehending sex offenders who violated sex
offender registration requirements. Patricia Albright, Management and
Program Analyst the SOIB, told that the Chief the SOIB approved
the design SOIB coin 2009 and then the unit placed orders for
challenge coins for different offices located different SOIB regions
and additional coins distribute training seminars. Chief Inspector the SOIB, told that when was launching the
SOIB 2009, was directed the SOIB then-Acting Chief get
[SOIB name out there, explain the SOIB purpose, and purchase
challenge coins provide individuals with whom the unit made contact.
The then-Acting Chief told that probably directed the regional SOIB
chiefs purchase 500 challenge coins each give away local police
departments. stated that because the majority the SOIB cases
started the state and local level, was important for Deputy U.S
Marshals make connections with local officials and that giving them
challenge coins would provide token for state local agents remember call the USMS for cases involving non-compliant sex offenders. Albright
made similar comments and told that the purpose the SOIB challenge
coin was promote the SOIB and that challenge coins could help build
relationships with local law enforcement, whose assistance was necessary
the fulfillment the Adam Walsh Act requirements.
Ultimately, SOIB management approved the purchase 7,805 SOIB
challenge coins, for $41,658.53 March, May, and September 2010. The
SOIB challenge coins accounted for approximately percent the IOD
challenge coins purchased 2010, and percent the money spent
coins that year.
SOIB also purchased challenge coins for special events that were
unrelated SOIB mission. For example, 2009, the USMS celebrated its
220th anniversary. August that year, SOIB ordered 290 the 220th
anniversary challenge coins (see Photo above) for $1,950. According
Patricia Albright pseudonym.
witnesses, the USMS was celebrating its anniversary nationally, and agency
employees were using the challenge coins and other items promote the
USMS. The 220th Anniversary coins were distributed various functions,
including rodeo. another instance, IOD personnel approved the purchase 350
 America Most Wanted 1000th Capture challenge coins for $1,680.
contractor who provided budget support the International Investigations
Branch told that the branch used appropriated funds purchase the
coins. According Supervisory Inspector Carla Russert, the producers
the television show America Most Wanted held celebration New York
City mark the 1000th capture fugitive profiled the television
show. Gift bags, which included the challenge coins purchased the
IOD, were distributed all the party attendees, which included USMS
employees, state and local law enforcement officials, and private citizens
associated with the show.
Christmas Ornaments
Beginning approximately 2008 and continuing into 2010, IOD
management authorized the purchase with appropriated funds 1,679
USMS-themed Christmas ornaments. The ornaments cost total
$13,605.95, average cost $8.10 per ornament.
Photo 2008, 2009 and 2010 USMS Christmas Ornaments
Source: Charles Brown, Inc. (t/a: API).
America Most Wanted was television show that reenacted true crimes and
profiled the individuals accused those crimes. The purpose the show was for viewers provide law enforcements officials with information leading the apprehension and
arrest the individuals suspected committing the oftentimes violent offenses.
Carla Russert pseudonym.
Because USMS directive banning the purchase and distribution
promotional items, which discuss below, none the 453 ornaments that were
purchased 2010 were distributed. According one witness, the 453 ornaments, which
cost $2,725, were still his office the time his interview June 2012.
According witnesses, the ornaments were typically ordered the
Assistant Director IOD for the purpose distributing them IOD
personnel and guests the annual Christmas party. Finan, who was
Associate Director for Operations and oversaw the Operations Divisions,
including IOD, for two the years examined this report, told that never authorized the purchase ornaments, but knew that they were
given out gifts. According Assistant Chief David Kellerman, the
ornaments were given IOD employees word encouragement and
 recognition their work done throughout the year. also stated that
the ornaments improved morale and that the USMS employees were
 generally appreciative for receiving them. Other witnesses told that
USMS delivered Christmas ornaments the individuals operating the tiplines America Most Wanted.
The Financial Program Manager for the Sex Offender Branch IOD,
who verified that funds were available for the purchase 285 ornaments
2008 and 310 2009 told that she did not know why she signed the
request for the ornaments, but that doing was stupid. She also told that IOD purchase the ornaments was insane and financially
irresponsible. Russert, who approved the purchase 285 ornaments
2008, told the OIG that she didn think much ordering the ornaments
and that she thought they were cute. Deputy Chief the IOD told
that approved the purchase 250 ornaments 2009 because the
individual coordinating the order the ornaments worked his division
and likely told him that (former) Assistant Director Mike Earp authorized
the purchase. The Deputy Chief also said that did not know for what
purpose the ornaments were used, but assum[ed] they were given out and
 never felt there was issue with [promotional items].
Neckties and Silk Scarves
Beginning August 2009, several IOD branches began purchasing
silk scarves and neckties. Between 2009 and 2010, IOD purchased 104 silk
scarves for $4,218, $40.55 per scarf and 246 silk ties for $7,110,
$28.90 per necktie. These items were particularly popular with the
International Investigations Branch, which responsible for apprehending
fugitives that are wanted foreign nations and believed the United
David Kellerman pseudonym. The Financial Program Manner also signed off the purchase 450 ornaments 2010, but, that instance, the request did not identify the items being purchased, but
instead listed the requested items supplies. 
Mike Earp retired from the USMS 2011 and initially agreed interview
with the OIG. However, cancelled the interview and did not return our telephone calls
e-mails reschedule the interview.
States. Witnesses from the International Investigations Branch told that
the silk ties and scarves were given their foreign counterparts
gesture goodwill, expression thanks, and some instances,
farewell gifts foreign officials whose embassy tours had ended. Chief
Inspector with the International Investigations Branch told that there
were lot promotional items share goodwill and that wanted
purchase promotional items that thought were appropriate, such ties,
cufflinks, and scarves for women. explained that these items were
appropriate because when travelled foreign jurisdictions, received
similar items from his foreign counterparts.
The purchasing scarves and neckties was not limited the
International Investigations Branch. also learned that addition the
first order neckties, IOD officials from other branches ordered both items
plus personalized boxes for the neckties bearing the names the chiefs
the TOG and the SOIB, well boxes that only had the USMS logo.
According the Financial Program Manager for the SOIB, she placed the
order for personalized boxes for the ties because she thought was
 awesome. However, she told that when the boxes arrived with the
various unit chiefs names and titles printed upon them, the managers were
 mortified and removed the items from the boxes and never used them.
The Financial Program Manager also told that purchasing the boxes and
the ties was poor financial management poor taste and poor judgment.
Retirement Awards
The anonymous letter the OIG alleged that IOD managers were
using appropriated funds purchase costly retirement gifts for other IOD
and USMS managers. Witnesses told that certain promotional items,
such 4-inch and 8-inch crystal statues, horse blankets decorative
box, pewter desk sets, and plaques were used retirement gifts for USMS
employees and, some instances, non-USMS law enforcement officers.
(See Photo below) Kellerman stated that someone from senior
management, either the Assistant Director IOD, Branch Chiefs, Chief Investigative Operations would determine what type items purchase
for retirements. stated further that was never given firm direction how much money spend retirement gifts and that the senior
managers would tell him what they wanted him purchase. Finan told
that the retirement gifts were paid for using funds appropriated the
USMS and that was appropriate for USMS because was gift could not determine the cost the individual personalized boxes, the fee
appears have been included the cost the necktie, which was $25 per tie. However,
the Personalization Setup for each manager boxes was $50, for total cost $100. service the employees who had served the USMS for extended
period time.
Photo USMS Large Crystal Statue and Plaque
Source: Charles Brown, Inc. (t/a API).
Between 2005 and 2010, IOD purchased 485 blankets throws for
total price $16,084.57 for average $33.16 per blanket throw. The
blankets ranged price from $25 for fleece blanket $149 for lamb
wool blanket and custom box with the USMS seal. The division also
purchased crystal statues both large and small sizes for $4,992.69 for average $79.24 per statue. The large statue cost $125 and the small
statue cost $38.
The New York/New Jersey Regional Fugitive Task Force this section, examine the expenditures the NY/NJ RFTF
illustrate how individual IOD branch purchased and used its
promotional items. 2000 Congress passed the Presidential Threat Protection Act,
which directed the Department establish permanent Fugitive
Apprehension Task Forces consisting federal, state, and local law
enforcement authorities designated regions the U.S., directed and
coordinated the USMS, for the purpose locating and apprehending
fugitives. According Water Blanco, the Chief Inspector the NY/NJ
RFTF, the mission the RFTFs target the most dangerous, violent
felony fugitives. May 2002, the USMS launched the NY/NJ RFTF, its first RFTF.
Blanco, who became the task force commander 2008, told that
Presidential Threat Protection Act 2000, Pub. No. 106-544, 114 Stat.
2718, (December 19, 2000).
Walter Blanco pseudonym.
the flagship and the model all other regional fugitive task forces.
told that order start the task force the USMS had get federal,
state, and local law enforcement agencies join the NY/NY RFTF. This
included convincing those agencies refer cases the task force for
investigation and assigning law enforcement officers and agents, known
TFOs, the program full-time basis. Blanco also stated that the law
enforcement agents assigned the NY/NJ RFTF become deputized U.S.
Marshals who have all the authorities Deputy U.S. Marshals.
Blanco, Laura Ballard (the Administrative Officer the NY/NJ RFTF),
and Deputy Commander John Erickson told that the size the task
force and the number participating law enforcement agencies has grown
dramatically since 2002. The NY/NJ RFTF began with offices 2002,
added additional office 2003, increased offices 2004, and
jumped offices 2007. initially had TFOs when began, added more 2003, increased between 2004 and 2006, and expanded
350 2007. present, the NY/NJ RFTF working with federal, state, local agencies. has offices and 316 full-time investigators from
participating agencies.
The TFOs assigned the NY/NJ RFTF are not USMS employees and not qualify for awards under the FEIA. Consequently, according
Blanco and Erickson, managers they cannot give time-off similar
awards TFOs who work for the task force for performing beyond
expectations closing difficult dangerous fugitive apprehension cases.
Blanco and Erickson told that order compensate for this deficiency
they provided promotional items, such challenge coins and plaques,
award TFOs for the purpose incentivizing them continue their efforts
for the NY/NJ RFTF. Erickson told that doing was good for
camaraderie, and way distinguish people for good work and keep
good morale. NY/NJ RFTF Supervisory Inspector Richard Danvers told
that providing awards the TFOs the end the year was way
fostering friendly competition and productivity the task force and
made the TFOs feel appreciated. Danvers also told that did not view
the awards promotional items, but instead operational expenses. part working with local police and state law enforcement
agencies, the NY/NJ RFTF runs yearly training programs for all task force
members. The NY/NJ RFTF sent 4,132 TFOs different training
programs between 2005 and 2010. Blanco told that everyone who
Blanco was preceded commander the NY/NJ RFTF two different Deputy
U.S. Marshals during the period time examined this report.
Laura Ballard and John Erickson are pseudonyms.
Richard Danvers pseudonym.
attends the training, whether USMS employee TFO, receives shirt,
pants, and hat order make them identifiable the training facility.
Erickson told that addition the clothing, the TFOs attending
training are sometimes given tactical gear, such mini-flashlights that can used for lowlight emanation searching. another part training,
Erickson told that the trainee with the best shooting score awarded
with Top Gun challenge coin (See Photo 4).
Photo NY/NJ RFTF Top Gun Challenge Coin
Source: EPolice Supply
During the period time examined the OIG, the NY/NJ RFTF also
participated the Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally (FALCON)
and Fugitive Safe Surrender programs, which the NY/NJ RFTF worked
with local law enforcement officers and civilian volunteers help fugitives
surrender and clear their warrants non-threatening locations, such
churches. The NY/NJ RFTF supervised these programs between 2005
and 2010. Erickson told that the majority people involved the
programs are non-USMS individuals and included, among other things,
volunteers from social services agencies and local law enforcement agencies. stated further that part the program, the NY/NJ RFTF provided
pins the volunteers that the participants would recognize volunteers
and thank people for their support.
Blanco and Erickson also told that promotional items were often
given dignitaries, law enforcement officers from state and local police
forces and other federal agencies, and, occasion, other USMS
personnel. Blanco also told that used promotional items means say thank you other law enforcement personnel and promote found that the T-shirts, pants, and hats, distributed the NY/NJ RFTF
these training sessions were parts uniform, that the mini-flashlights were tactical
and that neither were promotional items. Consequently, did not include items identified the USMS invoices being uniform tactical our analysis promotional items
purchased the IOD.
goodwill toward the USMS, and that networking with corporate
department heads, law enforcement, and community and religious leaders
was paramount the USMS mission. also told that was
embarrassed the fact that can longer give out promotional items,
especially when his counterpart likely give him promotional item from
his her agency.
Like the other units the IOD, the NY/NJ RFTF purchased and used
challenge coins. The NY/NJ RFTF purchased different types challenge
coins, including unit coin, and commander coin. Danvers said
gave unit coins his TFOs that they could give them other law
enforcement agencies while travel related apprehending fugitives.
Blanco told gave commander coins individuals visiting the
NY/NJ RFTF headquarters and thank people for assisting the USMS.
(See Photo 5).
Photo NY/NJ RFTF Commander Coin
The NY/NJ RFTF gained notoriety 2008, 2009, and 2010, when
several its deputy U.S. Marshals and TFOs were featured the Arts
Entertainment Network reality television show entitled
 Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force. According website, had
 unparalleled and unprecedented access, granted the Department
Justice and the U.S. Marshals, ride along with the agents the NY/NJ
Task Force, the busiest the country, they track[ed] down violent
criminals the run.
Photo Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force Promotional Posters
Blanco and Danvers told that the Manhunters program was very
important the USMS and Director John Clark. Blanco told that
Director Clark and the USMS OGC approved the NY/NJ RFTF
participation the program and that was told his regional chief that
Director Clark viewed the Manhunters program homerun for the
USMS and believed that Blanco should keep promoting the show. developed merchandise promote the Manhunters program,
including hooded sweatshirts, T-shirts, and coffee mugs, and produced
DVDs the series, all which are available for purchase from
website. According Blanco, provided him with some its
merchandise, including posters, T-Shirts, and DVDs and other instances
the USMS purchased these same types items for the NY/NJ RFTF.
told that used promotional items related the Manhunters program seminars, college career days, and similar events and gave the items
away people who asked for them. Blanco also stated that after
Manhunters premiered, distributing promotional materials related the
show made the Marshals Service look great, which was good for public
awareness and community relations. 
Blanco told that there were policies for him rely upon when
approving USM-157s for the purchase promotional items. stated
further that followed standard business practices from previous
commanders when approving requisition requests. However, detailed
below, found that the quantities promotional items purchased
recent years the NJ/NY RFTF (like other components IOD) were
Blanco and Erickson, who acted approver and/or budget officer
all the NY/NJ RFTF promotional items purchases, were located two
different offices and travelled often. According Blanco, Erickson, and
Ballard, when NY/NJ RFTF deputy marshal wanted make purchase, she would send e-mail Blanco and Erickson making the request.
The three witnesses told that Blanco approved the purchase, would through e-mail response the requester and Erickson and copy
Ballard. Ballard would then complete the USM-157 and would use
signature stamps sign the document for Blanco and Erickson. Blanco
told that used this process, rather than the process described
Section IV(B), above, because was often travelling and that this was most
efficient way handle requisition requests. Blanco and Ballard told that
they ceased engaging this activity when they were advised was
Figure below details the amount money spent the NY/NJ RFTF promotional items during fiscal years 2005 through 2010. Blanco,
Erickson, and Ballard told that the reason for the increase spending promotional items during this period was because the size the NY/NJ
RFTF was growing. illustrated Figure the task force spending
promotional items grew 1,029 percent during the 6-year period examined the OIG. discussed above, the NY/NJ RFTF grew from offices and TFOs 2002 offices and 350 TFOs 2007.
Figure Promotional Items Purchased the NY/NJ RFTF, Fiscal Years 2005 2010
Fiscal Year
Challenge Coins
2009 ,349.74
Patches, Emblems, Badges
Writing Implements
Pens Pen Sets
Other Stationery
Cufflinks Tie Pins/Bars
Blankets Throws
Key chains, Tags Rings
Other: Not Itemized
Costs include pro rata share shipping charges calculated based number items the shipment.
Drinkware includes mugs, glasses, tumblers, and water bottles.
Other stationery includes padfolios, journals, and rulers.
Other includes business card cases, mini-bats, wall plaques, pillows, coasters, poker chips, engraved cutting tools,
ornamental bookmarks, mouse pads, and mug wraps. analyzed the requisition requests provided the USMS for purchases made the NY/NJ RFTF determine
the amount appropriated funds spent promotional items and compared our findings spreadsheet created Ballard
depicting her analysis total dollars spent the NY/NJ RFTF promotional items. Ballard apparently included requisition
requests that were not provided the Inspector General and have included the difference our analysis Other: Not
Itemized account for the difference.
Actions Taken After the Complaint
After the OIG received the anonymous letter and opened this
investigation, the JMD and the USMS took several steps address the
issue purchasing promotional items Department personnel.
JMD Seminars late 2010, representatives from the Offices the Controller and the
Assistant Attorney General provided seminars all the Department
components, including the USMS, regarding Trinkets, Travel, and Other
Talked About Uses Government Funds. Pearlman, the attorney-advisor
with JMD OGC, told that the seminars were given response the
anonymous letter and concerns about fiscal responsibility. The USMS
received training November 2010. The two and one-half-hour program
included half-hour discussion appropriations, awards, and gifts, and
20-minute group discussion. JMD attorneys provided specific situational
examples handout given the attendees which they described
scenarios involving the use appropriated monies for promotional items. subheading entitled Purchasing Silk Neckties with Agency Seal, 
JMD provided the following example and commentary: thank you for several government and non-government
staff, Assistant Director decided that wanted purchase
silk neckties way not only thank everyone but also
way help convey the agency mission with specific agency
logo. The neckties were big hit and they ordered hundreds
that they could have them hand hand out other federal,
state and local personnel.
Take Away: unclear whether the first purchase was
appropriate, and the additional purchase hundreds was
definitely not appropriate. The initial purchase was arguably
the nature award, the thank you was for specific
accomplishment work performance. Again, caution that
such purchases and presentations should done within the
component awards program, and should well-documented,
especially those given outside individuals. The purchase
 hundreds have hand give out even more
issue. appears that these will just giveaways
outsiders, which are not appropriate, part because they
cannot justified awards. the extent they include the
 logo still creates problems that (a) they not appear targeting specific audience for the message and (b) they
are not being fiscally prudent regarding the method convey
the logo. another subheading entitled Recognition Component Task Force
Activities (involving state and local personnel), JMD provided the following
example and commentary:
Due the important and successful recent Law Enforcement
Mission called Operation Redbud the commander the Task
Force wanted recognize state and local law enforcement
personnel that had worked collaboratively with federal
personnel make ]Operation Redbud successful. Given that
the efforts were effective and there was need continue close
law enforcement information sharing, the commander wrote
justification requesting approval for the purchasing pens and
highlighters that included the name, phone number and web
site that personnel could use for future collaborative efforts.
Was this OK????
Take Away: Given that the items purchased were
 nominal value, coupled with the fact that there was specific
continuing message contained the item/trinket, this was
appropriate purchase. this case, the trinkets with message
serve mission-related purpose making the task force
contacts known giving the phone number, website, etc.
These types things can purchased, but their dollar value
should conservative/appropriate and they should only
given recipients that need receive the message. third subheading entitled Use Challenge Coins JMD
provided the following hypothetical and commentary:
One agency Director wanted further the outreach and
understanding his organization involved law enforcement
activities federal, state and local personnel that they dealt
with regular daily basis. The Director designed coin with specific logo for his organization, included his personal name
and phone number and sent the necessary procurement
forward purchase 500 this type coin. Within weeks,
had the stockpile coins that could give out all personnel
that contributed helping further the outreach his
organization. Also, within month, word has spread these
coins and every other Director decided design coin for
his/her group. Any problems with this?
Take Away: You have ask, this appropriate use
government funds? Are the coins being given awards?
the purchase and recipients should documented and the
accomplishment/performance should described. the
inclusion the Director name and phone number being given message? there reason the recipients need this
information? also concerns that the personal phone
number being used; such items should not contain such
personal information, there message here should
conveyed another way. the extent that these are being
given outside individuals goodwill gesture, might
appropriate use the [Representation] Fund this should
discussed with the Director office. the coins are not awards message-conveyors and [Representation] Funds are not being
used then they are not permissible and should not given
mere motivational items morale boosters.
The contractor who was responsible for ordering the IOD promotional
items and attended the seminar October, 2010, told that the message took from the training was that IOD spending was out hand and
that was going cease.	
Suspension USMS Promotional Items Purchases January 21, 2011, the Attorney General issued directive all
Department components reduce expenditures only mission-essential
programs, projects and activities. June 17, 2011, e-mail sent all
USMS management, which referenced Attorney General Holder
directive, USMS Chief Financial Officer Albert Hemphill stated that USMS
was developing promotional items policy and that all expenditures for
promotional items [were] suspended pending issuance formal policy. 
According witnesses, since the issuance this directive from Hemphill,
all promotional items purchases IOD employees have, fact, stopped.	
The Department Issuance Policies and Guidance
Regarding the Purchase Promotional Items October 2011, the Deputy Attorney General issued
memorandum entitled Continued Restrictions Non-Essential Spending. 
Through this memorandum, the Department directed all its components [s]uspend purchases all trinkets, including logo-supplies, logoportfolios, message-related items, clothing, etc., until further notice August 12, 2011, the JMD issued Financial Management Policies
and Procedures Bulletin No. 11-04 (FMPPB 11-04), entitled Restrictions
Using Department Justice Funds Purchase Trinkets (the JMD Trinket
Policy The JMD policy defined trinket item nominal value
such hat, mug, t-shirt coin. Furthermore, FMPPB 11-04 explicitly
stated that Department agencies and components may not use Department
funds purchase trinkets distributed Department employees
and/or members the public, unless the purchase qualifies under one
four exceptions.
The Department issued DOJ Policy Statement 1400.01 Planning,
Approving, Attending and Reporting Conferences, June 2012. This
policy statement explicitly states that [t]rinkets (items such hats, mugs,
portfolios, t-shirts, coins, etc., regardless whether they include the
component conference name logo) must not purchased
giveaways for conferences. DOJ Policy Statement 1400.01 permits DOJ
components purchase trinkets for the purpose giving them away
 individuals outside the Department, but only when the trinkets are paid
for with funds.
The Department issued Policy Statement 1400.02 January 30,
2013, and implemented Department-wide February 2013. This
Policy Statement replaces FMPPB 11-04. While DOJ Policy Statement
1400.02 adopts FMPPB 11-04 definition trinket, eliminates the
four exceptions and further restricts Department components authorities
purchase trinkets and commemorative items. particular, DOJ Policy Statement 1400.02 permits Department
components give commemorative items, such framed certificates
plaques, honorary awards employees, but only the award given
within the components guidelines policies. also allows components
give honorary award items nominal value (commemorative items
trinkets appropriate) individuals outside the Department who have
provided service the component. However, Policy Statement 1400.02
states, with minor exception, that such honorary awards must not cost
more than $100. The four exceptions were: (i) Trinkets given awards pursuant
established component awards program; (ii) Trinkets used convey message necessary accomplish the component mission; (iii) Trinkets purchased using Representation
Funds; (iv)Trinkets purchased pursuant component specific statutory authority
allowing for such purchases.
DOJ Policy Statement 1400.01 attached Appendix this report.
DOJ Policy Statement 1400.01 also states that [b]asic supplies that are
necessary for use during the conference (e.g., pens, paper, nametags) may purchased.
DOJ Policy Statement 1400.02 attached Appendix this report.
DOJ Policy Statement 1400.02 allows honorary awards exceed the $100 limit
only when the award being given conjunction with Department- Component-level
awards ceremonies Component Head Principal Deputy has approved the purchase item exceeding $100.
Furthermore, Department components are permitted purchase
commemorative items and trinkets promote goodwill towards the
Department, its components and their missions. However, DOJ Policy
Statement 1400.02 requires DOJ components use their funds
when doing so, accordance with DOJ Order 2110.31B.
DOJ Policy Statement 1400.02 also requires Department components establish adequate internal controls for the purposes documenting and
monitoring the purchase and distribution trinkets and ensuring that the
restrictions using Department funds purchase trinkets are followed. this end, DOJ Policy Statement 1400.02 requires each component
include trinket purchases the Department existing internal control
process conducted under Office Management and Budget Circular A-123,
 Management Responsibility for Internal Control.
DOJ Policy Statement 1400.02 specifically allows components
develop their own policies regarding the use Department funds
purchase trinkets. Component policies must not conflict with the DOJ
Policy Statement, but may more restrictive.
USMS Policy Directive 1.2 October 2011, the same day that the Deputy Attorney General
issued the memorandum entitled Continued Restrictions Non-Essential
Spending, USMS Director Stacia Hylton authorized and approved USMS
Policy Directive 1.2. The USMS policy addresses two categories items:
 Promotional Items and Ceremonial Items. 
The USMS policy defines Promotional Items as:
Low-cost items available for purchase containing USMS insignia
(seal, badge, logo, name, etc.) given either USMS
employees non-USMS employees for promotional purposes.
DOJ Order 2110.31B discussed Section III.D this report.
OMB Circular A-123 requires [a]gencies and individual Federal managers [to]
take systematic and proactive measures (i) develop and implement appropriate, costeffective internal control for results-oriented management; (ii) assess the adequacy
internal control Federal programs and operations; (iii) separately assess and document
internal control over financial reporting (iv) identify needed improvements; (v) take
corresponding corrective action; and (vi) report annually internal control through
management assurance statements. Memorandum from Executive Office the President,
Office Management and Budget the Heads Executive Departments and
Establishments (December 21, 2004) (available
The USMS policy attached Appendix this report.
Only the following types promotional items may purchased
with USMS workplan funds: hats/caps, pins, coins, pens,
pencils, t-shirts, key chains, business card holders, mouse
pads, notepads, patches, drinking glasses mugs,
paperweights, tin badges, lapel pins, tablet portfolios, and
The USMS policy states that Promotional Items may purchased
and distributed for the following specific reasons: recognition employees and others for contributions
services the USMS, for participation/performance
USMS conferences training events; necessary accomplish recruitment objectives; the Office Public Affairs necessary accomplish
informational/promotional objectives; make targeted audiences aware specific
program/initiative/priority the USMS, provided that the item
contain the specific message the program being publicized; 
and law enforcement officers from other agencies reciprocate
receipt similar items, and foster and maintain cooperation
and goodwill the furtherance the USMS operational
Additionally, the cost promotional items should under $10 per item. 
The policy defines Ceremonial Items as:
Plaques, statues, embossed clothing items, and office items
bearing USMS insignia that may given employees, retiring
employees, state/local employees and retirees, visiting
dignitaries and guests, and other non-employees recognition contributions services performed for the USMS
The policy states that the cost ceremonial items should not exceed $150
per item, and states: The intent these items for presentation
appropriate ceremonies. 
The new USMS policy also sets internal procedures for the
purchase items covered the policy. Any USMS district division must
submit request and obtain approval purchase the promotional items
(but not ceremonial items) from the Chief Financial Officer designee
before making any such purchase. addition, each USMS district, division staff office must assign administrative employee maintain log
the promotional and ceremonial items inventory. Any employee
authorized distribute promotional ceremonial items must provide
information the administrative employee indicating whom they
presented the item, when, and for what purpose. 
Analysis and Recommendations found that the growth IOD expenditures promotional items
during fiscal years 2005 2010 was excessive. detailed Figure
spending promotional items grew from $29,138.62 fiscal year 2005
$313,193.46 2010; 975 percent increase. comparison, the USMS
budget increased from $800,000,000 fiscal year 2005 $1,174,000,000 2010; increase 46.75 percent. IOD spending promotional items
far exceeded the USMS budgetary growth during the same period time.
The growth spending promotional items was the result the
absence internal controls, accountability, and good judgment. USMS
purchasing policies contributed this uncontrolled growth because they
left the discretion purchase promotional items with the branch offices,
where managers essentially, and, some cases actually, rubber-stamped
the USM-157 requisition requests miscellaneous supplies without
reference any limitations overall spending for promotional items.
noted, there was unique object class for promotional items that would
have facilitated any overall monitoring control over purchases this
type. The use micro purchasing authority further facilitated this growth spending. many instances, the spending was not allowable under Department
regulations GAO guidance. The promotional items purchased IOD, for
the most part, could not considered necessary expenses.
address several different categories purchases promotional items
Gifts Publicizing the USMS: Some the promotional items
described this report arguably had the purpose publicizing the USMS conveying message about mission program the USMS. For
example, SOIB distribution challenge coins 2009 and the NY/NJ
RFTF dissemination Manhunters promotional material arguably
promoted the Marshal Service. The guidance available USMS personnel
prior 2011 was ambiguous this category gifts. The 1993 OGC
memorandum stated that items this sort could given non-USMS
personnel provided they were nominal cost and had intrinsic value
function other than publicizing the agency. However, did not find that
this memorandum was widely disseminated within the USMS. Moreover,
noted above, the GAO subsequently held that gifts this sort that act
 favorable reminders but not convey essential information about the
agency are not permissible under the necessary expense doctrine.
general, the promotional items purchased the USMS did not convey
essential information about the agency its programs. Typically, the items
merely contained the logo the USMS one its components. some cases, the question whether the expenditure would
allowable under then-available guidance difficult answer. For example,
the SOIB spent almost $40,000 challenge coins 2010 help promote
the newly established SOIB and build relationships with local law
enforcement, whose assistance was necessary connection with the
implementation the Adam Walsh Act. The coins arguably provided
information the recipient that the SOIB existed and could act
reminder that the USMS and SOIB were available assist local authorities
with unregistered sex offenders. However, the coins themselves did not
provide the recipients with specific information about the SOIB its
activities apart from its name, and therefore might not have been considered
necessary expenses under GAO guidance. 2011, after this investigation was initiated, the USMS provided
much-needed clarity its employees the circumstances under which
this type expenditure allowable. The 2011 USMS Policy Directive
permits the purchase promotional items make targeted audiences
aware specific program/initiative/priority the USMS, provided that
the items contain the specific message the program being publicized. 
The SOIB challenge coins would not deemed allowable under this policy
because they did not contain any specific message other than the fact that
the SOIB exists.
Gifts Given Promote Goodwill: Some the promotional items
that IOD purchased, such silk ties and scarves, were given gifts law
enforcement agents from other agencies, and foreign dignitaries
promote goodwill toward the USMS. noted the 1993 OGC
memorandum, such gifts may made from the fund. Under the
memorandum, this category was not limited items that have intrinsic
value function other than publicizing the agency, and may thus include
items like scarves and neckties. Gifts this nature are also authorized
under DOJ Order 2110.31B and the USMS Reception and Representation
Guidelines. However, gifts purchased under the fund must
authorized the Director and are subject strict control and
documentation procedures and very low ceiling cumulative annual Matter Expenditures the Dept. Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Oklahoma
City, OK, B-247563.3, (April 1996).
expenditures $6,000 per year during 2005 2008 and 2011, and
$30,000 per year 2009 and 2010. The vast majority the witnesses
interviewed had never heard the fund. found evidence that any the money spent promotional
items described this report was deducted from the fund. With
respect scarves and neckties alone, the USMS had charged the
purchases these items against the fund 2008, the USMS would
have exceeded the statutory limit imposed Congress $1,340.
believe that many other the more expensive promotional items identified this report, such business card cases and engraved cutting tools, were
also used promote goodwill and therefore were subject fund
limitations. Items distributed USMS employees for goodwill purposes
also include certain challenge coins, such the 220th anniversary coin
and the America Most Wanted 1000th capture coin, and the Christmas
ornaments (to the extent they were given away non-USMS personnel).
Following the initiation this review, JMD has acknowledged its
training materials and Bulletin No. 11-04 that expenditures for promoting
goodwill are subject fund requirements and limitations. (See
Sections D.1 and D.3 above.) However, the USMS Policy Directive 1.2
makes reference the fund, despite authorizing gifts foster
and maintain cooperation and goodwill the furtherance the USMS
operational mission. 
Gifts Given Reciprocate Gifts from Others: Many witnesses told that they used promotional items such challenge coins reciprocate
similar gifts received from law enforcement officials other agencies who
worked with the USMS. This sort reciprocation has been common
practice among law enforcement personnel for many years, and was
acknowledged the 1993 OGC memorandum, which stated that
expenditures for this purpose may justified essential the mission
since the practice exchanging these items widespread and the lack reciprocity would have impact mission success. However,
noted above, the GAO has stated that gifts which are intended promote
reciprocal respect, goodwill and cooperation between federal agency and
its state local level counterparts are not necessary expenses. Moreover, the extent that purchases this type are used promote goodwill
between law enforcement agencies, they are arguably subject fund discussed Section III, above, found indication that the 1993 USMS
memorandum regarding promotional items was distributed within USMS. Matter use U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC)
Appropriated Funds for Purchase Marble paperweights and Walnut Plaques, B-184306,
Comp. Gen. 346, October 1975.
restrictions, discussed above. also note that the extent that the gifts
received from other law enforcement officials exchange were retained
the personal property the USMS official who received them (which
believe was commonly the case), the USMS purchase was effectively
personal gift the USMS employee who got something return. Such
uses appropriated funds are not permissible. are skeptical that the elimination the practice funding the
routine exchange promotional items will not likely undermine the ability the USMS obtain the cooperation other law enforcement agencies,
many which presumably face the same budget issues challenging the
USMS. The tradition may perpetuated, albeit likely more restrained
form, through private purchases the USMS employees who routinely
participate such exchanges and receive promotional items from others. sum, although the use promotional items for reciprocal
exchanges appears have been longstanding tradition the law
enforcement community, there little legal policy support for using
appropriated funds for this purpose.
JMD pronouncements recent years have not supported the use
appropriated funds for reciprocal exchanges. JMD 2010 training
regarding promotional items, the JMD trainers wrote that [t]o the extent
that [the challenge coins] are being given outside individuals goodwill
gesture, might appropriate use the fund and not treat such
expenditures necessary expenses. Additionally, JMD Policies and
Procedures Bulletin No. 11-04, which binding USMS, states that
Department components, such the USMS may not use Department
funds purchase trinkets distributed members the public 
unless the purchase: (1) qualifies award given pursuant
established component award program; (2) conveys message necessary
accomplish the component mission; (3) made using the Fund;
(4) purchased pursuant component specific statutory authority.
Reciprocal exchanges not fall within these categories.
However, USMS Policy Directive 1.2, promulgated October 2011,
authorizes the purchase promotional items reciprocate [for the] receipt similar items, and foster and maintain cooperation and goodwill the
furtherance the USMS operational mission. believe that USMS Policy
Directive 1.2 inconsistent with GAO decision holding that purchases
enable such reciprocal exchanges are not necessary expenses, and with
JMD training materials and JMD Policies and Procedures Bulletin No. 11-
GAO Red Book 4-155.
04, which state that such expenditures may only made subject the fund limitations and requirements.
Awards: Witnesses told that some promotional items, particular
challenge coins, were distributed informal awards both USMS
employees and TFOs for USMS-related accomplishments. particular,
saw this type activity the NY/NJ RFTF, whose managers stated that
doing was necessary because they could not award TFOs under the FEIA,
which only applied federal employees. They told that awarding
challenge coins plaques was good for morale and incentivized the TFOs
continue working diligently for the task force. The 1993 OGC memorandum
allowed for promotional items used for awards, long the
presentation was for bona fide award for performance (and not merely
participation). While the 1993 OGC memorandum and USMS Policy
Directive 3.3 (establishing the USMS awards program) not specifically
speak awards for TFOs, found that the NY/NJ RFTF practice
awarding promotional items for performance TFOs did not clearly violate
USMS policies place that time. However, because the task force did
not maintain records the awards were unable determine all the
promotional items given the NY/NJ RFTF the TFOs were, fact, bona
fide awards rather than gifts promote goodwill.
Gifts Build Morale: Christmas ornaments, some challenge coins,
and other promotional items were given USMS employees promote
morale. general rule, appropriated funds may not used purchase
personal gifts for government employees. Under the necessary expense
doctrine agency may purchase items the nature gifts employees non-employees, but only there direct link between the items and
the agency purposes for which Congress has appropriated funding.
Assistant Chief Kellerman told that the purpose behind giving the
Christmas ornaments USMS employees was for offering word
encouragement, recognizing the work done throughout the year, and
improving morale. None the reasons provided Kellerman established
that such purchases were necessary expenses.
Retirement and other Ceremonial Gifts: found evidence
incidents spending within the IOD ceremonial gifts, including crystal
statues costing average approximately $80 each and blankets costing average approximately $33 each. These items appear have been
used primarily retirement gifts gifts dignitaries. Although the
cumulative budgetary impact from the purchase retirement gifts was
relatively small, believe that some retirement gifts, such the lamb wool Matter Christmas Gifts and Sweaters Distributed Job Corps Participants
the Forest Service, B-195247 (August 19, 1979), see also, GAO Red Book 4-155.
blanket and custom box with the USMS seal, which cost $149, and the large
crystal statue, which cost $125, were excessive and that USMS personnel
should use better judgment and discretion when purchasing such items.
Current Circumstances: Witnesses told that notwithstanding the
issuance the Department policies and guidance and USMS Policy
Directive 1.2, their branch IOD has not resumed purchasing promotional ceremonial items. such purchases are resumed, the Department
policies and guidance and USMS Policy Directive 1.2 will likely result far
more restraint and have accountability IOD and other components the
USMS and the Department with respect purchases promotional items.
The Department policies and guidance are strong and clear statements
principles which, followed, will likely prevent abusive purchases
promotional items the future. They also require components adopt
internal controls document and monitor the purchase promotional
items and ensure compliance with the Policy. believe that USMS Policy Directive 1.2 will also encourage
restraint and enhance accountability with respect the purchase
promotional and ceremonial items. However, believe that the USMS
Directive flawed several respects and inconsistent with some the
Department policies. For instance, the USMS Policy authorizes gifts
promotional items employees and others for participation/performance USMS conferences training events. However, providing trinkets for
participating conferences explicitly forbidden DOJ Policy Directive
1400.01. addition, the USMS Policy authorizes purchases special
category promotional items for use the USMS Office Public Affairs necessary accomplish informational/promotional objectives. This
authority appears very broad and the extent that does not require
that the informational promotional message the item, may not
comply with current Department policies and GAO guidance.
Lastly, the USMS Policy continues authorize the purchase items
for the express purpose reciprocating similar gifts from other agencies
 and foster and maintain cooperation and goodwill. This authority
problematic for the reasons discussed above. contravenes DOJ Policy
Directive 1400.02 and GAO guidance necessary expenses because
authorizes expenditures for goodwill which are subject fund
requirements and limitations without specific requirement that such
expenditures made from the fund. acknowledge that the USMS Policy limits the cost promotional
items under $10, which modest amount per item. note that
very large proportion the excessive expenditures for promotional items
documented this report were for items, such challenge coins,
drinkware, and badges, that individually cost under $10. The excessive
expenditures were substantially attributable the quantity items
purchased rather than the cost the individual items. Therefore,
believe that controls the cumulative spending for promotional items are
particularly important.
The 2011 USMS Policy Directive also provides some guidance
ceremonial items. particular, limits spending ceremonial gifts
more than $150 and allows USMS managers present such items
 employees, retirees, federal officials, foreign officers, TFO, state/local
officers, and retirees these organizations, and citizens for the purpose
recognizing them appropriate ceremonies for contributions services
for the USMS. However, this $150 limit conflict with DOJ Policy
Statement 1400.02 $100 price